News GOP blocking 911 first responder health bill pass

  • Thread starter Thread starter jreelawg
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Health
Click For Summary
The GOP is currently blocking a health bill aimed at assisting sick and dying 911 first responders, a situation highlighted by Jon Stewart. Critics argue that this obstruction reflects hypocrisy in GOP rhetoric regarding support for these responders, especially in light of their past statements. The GOP's resistance is perceived as a political maneuver against the Obama administration, particularly related to tax cuts for the wealthy. Additionally, there are concerns about the historical handling of health risks associated with the 9/11 attacks, including allegations of misleading information from the EPA. The ongoing debate emphasizes the urgent need for bipartisan support to address the health issues faced by first responders.
  • #61
Proton Soup said:
well, yes. artificially induced psychosis and hysteria is exactly my beef with the way this bill was pushed.

I would say much the same, but in the way the bill was opposed. I don't think our views are going to meet, but if we can at least agree on what went into, and came out of the 'black box' we don't need to see eye to eye on ths.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #62
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #63
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.

I assume everything after your designation "In my opinion" is opinion - anything that isn't opinion, please support - it's not clear what you've asserted as fact.
 
  • #64
Some of this may have been covered in earlier posts, but I just heard an interview with NY Congressperson Carolyn Maloney that REALLY caught my attention. Please note, she is in favor of passing this legislation.

She disclosed that 36,000 people would receive benefits - across 428 Congressional Districts. Another spokesperson said 431 Congressional Districts are represented? She also said the cost estimate was once discussed at $10 Billion.

This (WTC Illness) is the same condition Hillary Clinton sought relief for in 2006 - $2B vs $7.4B ($10B or $6.2B?) clearly a much lower cost.
http://ehstoday.com/fire_emergencyresponse/ehs_imp_31792/
"Senate leaders eradicated a $2 billion proposal devised by Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., that would have set aside medical and mental health monitoring and treatment grants available for emergency responders, volunteers and residents affected by the World Trade Center debris in Lower Manhattan."

After listening to the Congressperson, reviewing the proposal first put forward by Hillary and a few of Mayor Bloomberg's recent statements http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2010/12/20/2010-12-20_mayor_bloomberg_on_the_offensive_as_fate_of_james_zadroga_911_health_bill_rests_.html?r=news/politics
- I have to wonder if the dollar amounts ($ Billions) are arbitrary? Is there an actual cost basis for these amounts? Are any of these funds going to reimburse the local communities - or just individuals?

Also, given the number and diversity of persons they are trying to cover, another issue comes to mind. If an insurance company has paid a claim - and you are reimbursed for that cost -> the insurance company may have a right to those funds.
 
  • #66
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

If they do indeed settle at $4 Billion, it has to make you wonder about the basis of these numbers. There is a VERY big difference between Hillary's $2 Billion, and the $6.2 to $10 Billion range - now back to "only" $4 Billion. Who was cut out, what is cut back, what isn't going to be paid - or - why is the number DOUBLE the amount Hillary specified?

$2 Billion/36,000 = $55,555 per person and $7.4 Billion/36,000 = $205,555...how can nearly $95,000 less per person POSSIBLY be acceptable - if the higher numbers were legitimate? What is going on here?
 
Last edited:
  • #67
Good grief, the bill pays out to 36,000 so called first responders?
 
  • #68
mheslep said:
Good grief, the bill pays out to 36,000 so called first responders?

From Congressperson Maloney's website- describes the situation:
http://maloney.house.gov/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=2202&Itemid=61

"Fact Sheet on H.R. 847, the 9/11 Health and Compensation Act:

What is the problem?

■ Thousands of first responders and others exposed to the toxins of Ground Zero are now injured and need our help. These include firefighters, rescue workers, responders, police officers and EMTs, U.S. military personnel, construction workers, cleanup workers, residents, area workers, and schoolchildren, among others. Their illnesses include a range of respiratory, gastrointestinal, and mental health conditions.

■ To date, an estimated 36,000 Americans have received treatment for 9/11-related illnesses and injuries. Over 53,000 responders are enrolled in medical monitoring. 71,000 individuals are enrolled in the WTC Health Registry, indicating that they were exposed to the toxins.

■ At least 10,000 people came from around the country to help in the aftermath of the attacks. They hail from every single state in the union and nearly every Congressional district. Many are sick and others are concerned about their future health. (Please click here for a list of Registry enrollments nationwide and in each congressional district.)

■ Those who have economic losses because of their 9/11-related illnesses need and deserve compensation, but have no alternative to the current litigation system. The WTC contractors and the City of New York are being sued by over 11,000 people who were injured because of Ground Zero toxins. They face great financial loss because they were asked to help at Ground Zero in the country’s time of need."



The details of how the funds will be allocated are not yet clear.
 
  • #69
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.

That said, given that it has to pass, the compromise version is far better than the initial proposal; even if you're silly enough to imagine that some kind of bill was necessary in the first place, you have to agree with this. Proof of point: divided government, and the filibuster, are good things.
 
  • #70
WhoWee said:
. 71,000 individuals are enrolled in the WTC Health Registry, indicating that they were exposed to the toxins.[/B]
Oh, I stand corrected: 71,000 first responders . In addition to the spending rip off, this is an insult to real first responders.
 
  • #71
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.
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.
 
  • #72
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.
 
  • #73
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'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?
 
  • #74
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. The obligation to do so, is IMO justified by the fact that these people were intentionally led to believe, falsely, that volunteering to help clean up, and participate in search and rescue, was safe, and that protection wasn't necessary. This misinformation was disseminated from the federal government.
 
  • #75
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?
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.
 
  • #76
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.
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.
 
  • #77
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.

What the burden of proof?
 
  • #78
original quote by turbo-1
"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. "


In response to the idea that help flowed in from all over the country - it did - but, as was pointed out earlier, THEY probably should have come better prepared for the situation.


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.


I happened to visit a firehall near the crash site in PA on the evening of 9/11. I talked at length with several young firefighters that were packing gear to drive to NY to help any way they could. They were (possibly) just as emotional as the people with buildings falling around them.

This scene was repeated around the country - and many drove very long distances. While emotional, none of the people who drove cross country ran into a burning building.

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?

However, when I step back and look at it from this perspective, I can only conclude that nobody really knew the actual danger from the air. Nobody wanted to get sick, and nobody wanted anyone to become sick - other than the people who crashed the planes into the buildings in the name of their pathetic cause.

When I look at these numbers (from the Congressperson's site)
"■ To date, an estimated 36,000 Americans have received treatment for 9/11-related illnesses and injuries. Over 53,000 responders are enrolled in medical monitoring. 71,000 individuals are enrolled in the WTC Health Registry, indicating that they were exposed to the toxins.

I also think it's quite pathetic that we are discouraged from openly labeling that pathetic cause which is responsible for all of this pain, suffering, and expense.
 
  • #79
jreelawg said:
What the burden of proof?
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.
 
  • #80
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.
 
  • #81
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?
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?
 
  • #82
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.

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.
 
  • #83
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.

The scope of destruction that a small number of ***holes can accomplish really is stunning. The fact that it does NOTHING for even their demented cause's hope for the future is what makes them so pathetic. Seriously, we fought in world wars... they don't have enough planes to take us out, but eventually people are going to snap... I mean, more than they already have.

P.S. I'd call their cause, "We want to live in the bronze age, but with less rights for women!"
 
  • #84
jreelawg said:
Bush did not drop the ball, his administration intentionally misinformed the public about the health risks, there is a big difference.

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) 324-3000


Good luck!
 
  • #85
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!

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.
 
  • #86
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.

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?
 
  • #87
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?


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.
 
  • #88
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.

As someone said earlier in this thread it should be common sense seeing the dust plume and fires that it was dangerous. Given what a skyscraper is made of, and jetliner... and general knowledge of the effect of micro-particulates... there's just no way that this wasn't misinformation. You've said it, and others keep acting shocked... I don't get it. This same administration later stood Colin Powell up to lie to the UN and the US people, and lied in turn themselves. I'm not shocked that they decided that the immediate crisis should be made the focus... and look at he result: Bush is out of office while the next administration and congresses deal with the fallout. A pattern emerges...
 
  • #89
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.

Not to mention the entire contents of the Twin towers (plastics, computers (so silane gas) and more... It was not JUST an inhalation hazard by any means.