The discussion centers around a bill intended to support sick and dying 911 first responders, which is reportedly being obstructed by the GOP. Participants explore the implications of this blockage, the motivations behind it, and the broader context of political maneuvering related to the bill.
Participants express a range of views, with no clear consensus on the motivations behind the GOP's actions or the implications of the bill. Disagreements persist regarding the relevance of lawsuits against NYC and the political strategies at play.
Some participants note that the bill's funding and its relationship to existing treaties may complicate its passage. There is also mention of the bill being presented under rules that require a supermajority, which may have strategic implications for its approval.
Proton Soup said:well, yes. artificially induced psychosis and hysteria is exactly my beef with the way this bill was pushed.
jreelawg said:The fact is that 911 responders are the ones who have been used to prey on peoples emotions, and this outlines the hypocrisy Jon Stewart brings attention to.
In my opinion, the use of 911 responder rhetoric was a very useful and exploited card to play, in terms of motivating support for a war in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as a motivational tool to recruit people into the military.
The brave sacrificial heros as role models for the American public was valuable to the administrations agendas. The add reads, something like, the attack was a call to action, and those who volunteered are heros, and so can you be, if you join military and fight selflessly for your country as those did on 911.
Had they warned people of the health consequences, and people had evacuated the area until the dust settled, and carefully worked using appropriate gear, and had schools near ground zero shutdown, and had people near the area stop work, then the message which was so central to the advocacy of their agenda wouldn't have been the same.
All of this is only more and more of a reason that the very same people who have been exploiting this, (the emotional weapon of 911 first responders, defiance, bravery, and patriotism) seam to be the people you would expect to support the bill. They have instead proven that their agendas, conflicts of interest, and support for foreign corporations trumps their support for the American Hero, and American people. Of coarse, if you hadn't had your head in the sand your whole life, then this was probably already obvious to you.
turbo-1 said:Senate aides are saying that a deal has been struck on the first-responders health bill. To the tune of $4 billion over 5 years.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/22/911-first-responders-heal_1_n_800326.html
mheslep said:Good grief, the bill pays out to 36,000 so called first responders?
Oh, I stand corrected: 71,000 first responders . In addition to the spending rip off, this is an insult to real first responders.WhoWee said:. 71,000 individuals are enrolled in the WTC Health Registry, indicating that they were exposed to the toxins.[/B]
You are aware that help flowed in from all over the country, right? NYC employees? Not hardly. There were LOTS of people working to sift through debris for remains and evidence and clean up that site, most of whom were not firefighters or Port Authority employees.talk2glenn said:This is pure politics. There are existing programs to provide for the healthcare of city employees, and existing insurance/pension funds to cover any job-related disability or debilitation, and the 9/11 special treatment 'cause its politically convenient fund is frivolity of the worst sort.
I'm not an epidemiologist or an expert in environmental illness and have no opinion on the health effects of working in that environment. Do you?mheslep said:People that flowed in from all over the country were not onsite until days later. If the theory is that anyone who got a whiff of some burning debris a week after the attack is eligible for a share of the billions, the a good fraction of the millions living in NYC are likewise eligible, as are the Pentagon fire responders, and every other fireman in the US whose ever fought a fire. There is no solid evidence at hand that the WTC fires had health effects worse than others elsewhere.
I have an opinion on the bill, which doesn't require one to be a health expert. This is compensation case. By law, before billions have been given out to tens of thousands of people there needs to be a positive scientific demonstration of a harm singular to the WTC before shelling out the money. The burden of proof is on the claimant, or on their supporters to bring forth the experts and make the case, not me, not those who oppose this bill. Again no such case has been made.turbo-1 said:I'm not an epidemiologist or an expert in environmental illness and have no opinion on the health effects of working in that environment. Do you?
Yes it is going to those only tangentially involved. Many of them actuarially will have some random respiratory problem having nothing to do with the WTC 911 and they will have medical bills having nothing to do with WTC 911. But many think that people shouldn't have to pay any medical bills, calling free medical care at the point of access a right. So I assert that to many of those so inclined the connection to the WTC is mostly irrelevant, except as a cover, as to them the cause is justification enough. That still leaves this bill as big lie, piling more spending on a nearly bankrupt country and borrowing from the future.jreelawg said:I figured that the money would go to paying for necessary healthcare. If this is the case, it's not like a handout to anyone who got a whiff of smoke, it's going to pay some of their medical bills.
mheslep said:Yes it is going to those only tangentially involved. Many of them actuarially will have some random respiratory problem having nothing to do with the WTC 911 and they will have medical bills having nothing to do with WTC 911. But many think that people shouldn't have to pay any medical bills, calling free medical care at the point of access a right. So I assert that to many of those so inclined the connection to the WTC is mostly irrelevant, except as a cover, as to them the cause is justification enough. That still leaves this bill as big lie, piling more spending on a nearly bankrupt country and borrowing from the future.
nismaratwork said:The search for survivors was absolutely hopeless and short-term compared to the months of exposure many of these people had. The war zone comment is just inane; the war on terror is a war in name only. Even in a REAL war zone, you don't send people into those kind of conditions so poorly equipped, and the training is different. Oh, and in a war zone you don't have two skyscrapers pancaked into a pit... emotions ran high, but that's no excuse for leadership to fail in the very time of crisis we HIRE THEM TO DEAL WITH.
For the health issue, it is on those asking for the money, or their supporters, as it is in any such case. Recall that a great deal of financial help, medical and otherwise has already been given to the actual first responders. This case is not about them.jreelawg said:What the burden of proof?
Bush did not drop the ball, his administration intentionally misinformed the public about the health risks, there is a big difference. Why speculate about one "could say". Anyone could say anything, and it doesn't make it true. Why do you ignore the clear cut truth, and instead post misinformation. And why do you expect that people should have known the health hazards, and taken the proper precautions, when that information was restricted from their access. Should they have ignored the EPA, and instead conducted their own research, and experimentation before moving on to the rescue and cleanup?WhoWee said:All of them had plenty of time to think about the condtions on the ground as nobody was allowed to fly.
I guess it could be said that Bush dropped the ball - that Bush should have informed all of the firefighters and other "first responders" from around the country that drove to NY (some from California) that the air quality was bad and their masks were not sufficient?
nismaratwork said:mheslep: Make that "first responders plus people on the scene"... you know, the ones running the clouds of 'dust', and the ones who received the fallout from the 'dust'.
In general, why is it that people think this is a "scam"? I understand an ideological difference:
Conservative: Existing programs and health insurance already cover the illnesses that will be caused by this event.
Liberal: Existing programs are insufficient, and health insurance draws out the process in court while people die.
I see two views, not a scam, or a something to roll eyes at.
WhoWee said:It just makes me angry again at the scum bags that did this in the first place - in the name of their un-named and pathetic cause.
jreelawg said:Bush did not drop the ball, his administration intentionally misinformed the public about the health risks, there is a big difference.
WhoWee said:You are making a serious criminal allegation. You should contact the FBI immediately and share your information. Here is their contact info:
FBI Headquarters
935 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20535-0001
(202) 324-3000Good luck!
jreelawg said:I think we already had this discussion, and the act was admitted and justified as a measure related to national security. So apparently they did, and no it is not a serious crime. Nice troll work though.
WhoWee said:You posted this just a few minutes ago.
"Bush did not drop the ball, his administration intentionally misinformed the public about the health risks, there is a big difference. "[/I]
Somehow the intense spirit of your quote doesn't seem to match your humble explanation.
As for the rest of your post...
"Why do you ignore the clear cut truth, and instead post misinformation. And why do you expect that people should have known the health hazards, and taken the proper precautions, when that information was restricted from their access. Should they have ignored the EPA, and instead conducted their own research, and experimentation before moving on to the rescue and cleanup? "
People that were on or near the scene when the buildings fell didn't have a choice - they were victims. People who stayed at the scene in spite of choking on the dust - did what they thought was best. People that responded to the scene later in the day on 9/11 knew there was a lot of dust and smoke and used the equipment issued by their departments. I maintain that rescue workers driving cross country brought their own department issued equipment and had time to think about the situation and prepare accordingly.
Rescue workers know the dangers of burning and collapsed buildings, just as their fellow rescue workers did when they heroically rushed into the failing buildings and lost their lives.
My specific question to you (for clarification) is this, at what point did the EPA suddenly become responsible and how many people did they hurt? Who did they mislead and when did they mislead them? At what point in time does your post become valid?
jreelawg said:The hazard was more than just dust and smoke. The hazards presented from abspestos, and the alkalinity of the dust were aspects of the situation in which a common person would not be aware of unless they were informed about it.
jreelawg said:The hazard was more than just dust and smoke. The hazards presented from abspestos, and the alkalinity of the dust were aspects of the situation in which a common person would not be aware of unless they were informed about it.