Archive

9/11 First Responder Bill

  • ptown_trojans_1
    Anyone who saw Jon Stewart last week knows the passion he has for the 9/11 1st Responders Bill.
    http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/12/no-laughing-matter-white-house-says-comedian-jon-stewart-put-awareness-on-911-health-bill.html

    http://www.indecisionforever.com/2010/12/20/jon-stewart-and-the-daily-show-may-have-saved-the-911-first-responders-bill/

    It was moving and really amazing that no one covered the bill for a long time.

    The bill will extend health benefits of 9/11 1st responders who were dropped by their local and state offices. The stories are just awful, and the pleas make you cringe.

    Senate R's keep blocking the measure, opposing the spending measure, which closes a tax loophole to pay for it.
    http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/12/21/showdown-over-911-first-responders-health-bill

    Moat famous was Anthony Weiner's shouting at members this summer in the House passage of the bill.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEplP2Fl0e8&feature=related

    Today even former 9/11 mayor Giulani said to vote for the measure.
    http://www.foxnewsinsider.com/2010/12/20/giuliani-911-heroes-should-be-taken-care-of/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+FoxNewsInsider+%28Fox+News+Insider%29

    Shep Smith has also really hammered R's to pass this.
    http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/12/21/shep_smith_coburn/

    This should be done and is an area of bipartisanship for our heroes that day.
  • Manhattan Buckeye
    I'm for the bill. We should pay for it by having Congress give up their healthcare benefits unless they have an immediate family member in the military...and their salary...and their pension.

    And Jon Stewart can help out by donating to the Wounded Warrior project...and if this was so damn important to the DEMS they should have passed it when they had control of the country for two years.
  • ptown_trojans_1
    Sure, I wouldn't mind that. It's already paid for by closing a tax law loophole.
    Whatever gets it through soon.
    But, 1. It was offered in the House just this year and 2. The Senate has had the 60 votes needed to block the measure. So, kid of hard to make the argument in the two years, they should have brought it up.
  • Manhattan Buckeye
    "But, 1. It was offered in the House just this year"

    So why not the year before it? It is still a lame duck bill, for a reason.
  • ptown_trojans_1
    Manhattan Buckeye;609565 wrote:"But, 1. It was offered in the House just this year"

    So why not the year before it? It is still a lame duck bill, for a reason.

    I don't know, maybe the need wasn't or it wasn't brought to the House attention earlier. Why wasn't it brought up in the R Congress before 2006? Point: Doesn't matter. It is here now.
    And two, blame the R's who balked at anything that was done before the tax deal being done. If they would not have balked at the tax deal (which we got done), then it could have been passed. That is why it is in the Lame Duck now. It has been blocked by R's since the summer when it passed the House.

    Point: It is in the Senate, has the means to get it paid for, and needs to be passed. This should not be a partisan issue.
  • Manhattan Buckeye
    "I don't know, maybe the need wasn't or it wasn't brought to the House attention earlier"

    That's right, you don't...what you know is "news" from a clown who appears to think that all of a sudden it is of national import.

    No personal offense meant, but Jon Stewart isn't serious news, and he isn't unbiased, and if this was that important he could have been outraged back in the Summer. And he could have have been outraged at the DEMS. At this point we aren't paying for anything, we're broke.
  • I Wear Pants
    So this bill isn't good because Jon Stewart wants it passed?
  • ptown_trojans_1
    Manhattan Buckeye;609572 wrote:"I don't know, maybe the need wasn't or it wasn't brought to the House attention earlier"

    That's right, you don't...what you know is "news" from a clown who appears to think that all of a sudden it is of national import.

    No personal offense meant, but Jon Stewart isn't serious news, and he isn't unbiased, and if this was that important he could have been outraged back in the Summer. And he could have have been outraged at the DEMS. At this point we aren't paying for anything, we're broke.

    Yes, he is bias, yes it is not real news. However, this is the one thing that he takes seriously. Watch his show. It is something he has been talking about since this summer. It is just no news agency was covering it. He is angry at everyone for not covering it.
    If it is already paid for by closing a tax loophole is that not good enough to pay for it?

    This is not hard. It is already paid for. Pass it and help pay for these brave first responders whop risked and now are giving their lives.
  • Manhattan Buckeye
    I Wear Pants;609573 wrote:So this bill isn't good because Jon Stewart wants it passed?

    The bill is good, I said so in my post above - I even explained how we could pay for it.

    I just don't understand why all of a sudden this is Jon Stewart's new schtick. The 9/11 first responders didn't magically develop health problems in the last two weeks.

    But to year your point, yes I think Jon Stewart is as credible as O'Reilly or Olbermann. I don't understand his appeal at all. And he is certainly NOT unbiased...the rally for sanity? A desperate attempt to rationalize the Reid/Pelosi debacle the last two years.
  • ptown_trojans_1
    Manhattan Buckeye;609579 wrote:The bill is good, I said so in my post above - I even explained how we could pay for it.

    I just don't understand why all of a sudden this is Jon Stewart's new schtick. The 9/11 first responders didn't magically develop health problems in the last two weeks.

    It is already paid for.


    And, maybe since Stewart was in NYC during 9/11 he thinks it is a big deal?
  • I Wear Pants
    Manhattan Buckeye;609579 wrote:The bill is good, I said so in my post above - I even explained how we could pay for it.

    I just don't understand why all of a sudden this is Jon Stewart's new schtick. The 9/11 first responders didn't magically develop health problems in the last two weeks.

    But to year your point, yes I think Jon Stewart is as credible as O'Reilly or Olbermann. I don't understand his appeal at all. And he is certainly NOT unbiased...the rally for sanity? A desperate attempt to rationalize the Reid/Pelosi debacle the last two years.

    The. Bill. Is. Already. Paid. For.

    My point is that you have not presented an argument for why this bill should not be passed or anything that excuses the people who have stopped it from being passed so far. All you have said is basically "I don't like Jon Stewart because he has views that are different then my own".

    I just watched that episode of Stewart and I liked the interview with Huckabee. Specifically when Huckabee says of his book "The book is written so simply that even most members of Congress can understand it. That is the intellectual threshold at which it has been done".
  • BGFalcons82
    It makes you feel good to say..."I am for 1st responders" at the 911 site in NYC. I agree that the positives far outweigh the negatives. But I have some questions....

    1. I see the bill is for $7,400,000,000 and it covers roughly 10,000 claims. First...10,000 claims? Really? It sounds to me like anyone that had a NYPD or NYFD jacket has ponied up for the benefits. Second...do the math. That's about $740,000 per person above and beyond all claims paid to date. Is it really all that much? Me thinks there are many thousand other fingers in the government pie.

    2. On a more philosophical level...what makes the NY 1st responders more important than say....home fire 1st responders in Cincinnati...or bomb scare first responders in Las Vegas? Why are NYC 1st responders more important than the rest of them? I read where it has to do with smoke and dust inhalation. OK, that makes sense, but don't firefighters in Cincinnati have inhalation issues, too? I'm thinking there are Congressional votes tied to this "legislation" that couldn't otherwise be purchased...how cynical of me.

    3. I also read where there are lawsuits pending for the NYC first responders that would be dropped should this be passed. The word, extortion, comes to mind for the backers of this "legislation".

    To me, this feel-good, be-good, all-good legislation has a taint to it, and to recognize it for the taint would make one sound unfeeling, uncaring, and neanderthal-like. Funny how the facts get in the way of a good story, eh?
  • ptown_trojans_1
    1. Bill is around 6 billion, and applies to all firefigters and first responders who qualify and benefits run out. Plus, these are expensive procedures.
    2. Didn't know Cincy firefighters responded the day after 9/11 and were subject to the ash and toxins that the NYC and Port Authority fighters were?
    3. Yeah, as this is a way to obtain funds instead of relying on insurance companies to pay the bills. If the state, local and private insurance is not paying, then the feds can step in. I see no problem with that as it is the only way these guys can get the money to pay for treatment.

    This is a thread that has been on a mind for a while, and just had the time to put it up tonight.
  • I Wear Pants
    Allocated does not equal used. Or at least I don't believe so. And using one of the dudes interviewed by Stewart as an example, throat cancer on both lymph nodes cannot be cheap to pay for.
  • CenterBHSFan
    6 Billion? WTF?
  • BGFalcons82
    ptown_trojans_1;609623 wrote:1. Bill is around 6 billion, and applies to all firefigters and first responders who qualify and benefits run out. Plus, these are expensive procedures.
    2. Didn't know Cincy firefighters responded the day after 9/11 and were subject to the ash and toxins that the NYC and Port Authority fighters were?
    3. Yeah, as this is a way to obtain funds instead of relying on insurance companies to pay the bills. If the state, local and private insurance is not paying, then the feds can step in. I see no problem with that as it is the only way these guys can get the money to pay for treatment.
    It was $7,400,000,000 and now it's $6,200,000,000.

    I'm sorry for them and I do feel their need for care. Let me ask you this: Did these 1st responders sign up for saving lives, putting their lives in harm's way, and wearing the hero clothes? I'm reminded of how we're supposed to feel sorry for the simpletons on the Gulf Coast that continually rebuild their homes in known hurricane paths and then when the news reporters show up to tell us their horrid story, we are supposed to fork over millions in cash to save them...and to allow them to...well, you know...BUILD THERE AGAIN.

    To answer your question, fires are loaded with toxic fumes, toxic gases, and clouds of dust/haze/debris. Yes, firefighters in Cincinnati, Columbus, and Timbuktoo inhale these same toxins as the NYC 1st responders did. Why is the poison in NYC superior to the poison for everyone else? This smacks of a payoff to someone or some group...and the insurance carriers would LOVE to see it go into effect so that THEY don't have to pony up any benefits. The word, theft, is coming to mind now in addition to the word, extortion.

    This bill/"legislation" is business as usual in DC.
  • CenterBHSFan
    I'm having to agree with BG on many of his points, if not all of them.
    6 BILLION

    WTF!?
  • majorspark
    This is politics plain and simple. This lame duck congress will be dead in a little over a week. The newly elected congress will deal with this in a few weeks. Republicans are not ogres for stopping the lame duck congress from legislating law. The republicans are right in deferring this legislation to the newly elected congress who will take power in just a few weeks. 9/11 first responders will not die or suffer unjustly till the new congress takes power. The will be given just care. Period.

    How we fund it is up for argument. Stopping the lame duck congress from using this as a political tool is the right choice. They will be taken care of. We all know it. The best method of paying for it is something for us to wisely consider. Let the new congress handle this. Hopefully the will find a better solution.
  • cbus4life
    Manhattan Buckeye;609572 wrote:"I don't know, maybe the need wasn't or it wasn't brought to the House attention earlier"

    That's right, you don't...what you know is "news" from a clown who appears to think that all of a sudden it is of national import.

    No personal offense meant, but Jon Stewart isn't serious news, and he isn't unbiased, and if this was that important he could have been outraged back in the Summer. And he could have have been outraged at the DEMS. At this point we aren't paying for anything, we're broke.

    He was. August=Summer.

    http://www.mediaite.com/online/jon-stewart-addresses-defeated-911-first-responders-bill-with-new-segment-i-give-up/

    Maybe he isn't "outraged" at what you are, and that is fine to disagree with him on that point, but to act like this is the first time he has talked about this is dishonest. A simple Google search tells you otherwise.
  • stlouiedipalma
    majorspark;609648 wrote:This is politics plain and simple. This lame duck congress will be dead in a little over a week. The newly elected congress will deal with this in a few weeks. Republicans are not ogres for stopping the lame duck congress from legislating law. The republicans are right in deferring this legislation to the newly elected congress who will take power in just a few weeks. 9/11 first responders will not die or suffer unjustly till the new congress takes power. The will be given just care. Period.

    How we fund it is up for argument. Stopping the lame duck congress from using this as a political tool is the right choice. They will be taken care of. We all know it. The best method of paying for it is something for us to wisely consider. Let the new congress handle this. Hopefully the will find a better solution.

    Don't hold your breath waiting for Boehner and his cronies to pass this in the new Congress. They have job creation to worry about. If this isn't passed in the current session, it will die as surely as some of those First Responders will.
  • CenterBHSFan
    Ok, I don't want to be "just another baddie" here, but let us consider this:

    There was, at least, over $2.2 billion given to the 911 charities within the first 6 months after that event, Lord only knows how much since then.

    the record $2.2 billion U.S. charities received in the wake of 9/11

    Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05261/573641-84.stm#ixzz18oOBIVRy

    And now our government wants to grant another 6 billion to the cause of helping people who have paid in full their duty and commitment to the saving of the lives of others. At what point do we finally stop this?

    I realize that we have to support and give money to those people who risked their lives at 911. I don't mind it. I've even donated money and gave blood myself (still living in Ca. at the time). I consider myself to be patriotic and compassionate and I can even see how this pulls at the heartstrings.

    My questions are, how do we come up with these numbers of people/dollars? How much has our government already paid out?
    Who all is getting labeled as a "first responder"? What about people that were not firemen, police, etc.... the people who were in the localized area that breathed in that stuff - do they get dibs too?

    I could go on and on with my questions but I think that I've asked enough to get my general concerns across.

    6 billion...
  • Manhattan Buckeye
    ptown_trojans_1;609580 wrote:It is already paid for.


    And, maybe since Stewart was in NYC during 9/11 he thinks it is a big deal?
    I was there as well and witnessed the second tower fall, and went to three funerals (all from Cantor Fitzgerald). I don't get how these folks are any different than my high school basketball teammate that lost his life in Tikrit serving with the Marines, and I still don't get why this wasn't an outrage for him earlier.
  • Manhattan Buckeye
    "The. Bill. Is. Already. Paid. For."

    In what world do you live in? We're 13T in debt. Have we got to the point where the numbers mean nothing? It appears so. Eff it, let's just monetize our debt already, just print out money and we'll all be rich.

    We aren't paying for anything now.

    Our. grandchildren. will. pay. for. this. and. spit. on. our. graves.
  • stlouiedipalma
    Just to set the record straight, does anyone know if any of the political talking heads on cable mentioned this before Stewart?
  • stlouiedipalma
    http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/worker-safety/132907-health-bill-for-911-workers-fails-key-vote


    According to this, the bill is paid for by closing a tax loophole by foreign multinational companies. That explains the Republican opposition completely.