GOP blocking 911 first responder health bill pass

  • News
  • Thread starter jreelawg
  • Start date
  • #76
mheslep
Gold Member
311
728
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
107
0
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
149
0
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.


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
mheslep
Gold Member
311
728
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
107
0
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
149
0
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
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
149
0
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
107
0
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!
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
149
0
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
107
0
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
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
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.
 

Related Threads on GOP blocking 911 first responder health bill pass

Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
48
Views
5K
Replies
72
Views
7K
  • Last Post
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Last Post
3
Replies
55
Views
6K
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
8
Views
3K
Replies
54
Views
7K
Top