Republicans are holding up the 911 first responders aid bill.
After it happened Republicans were calling them national heroes, WTF is wrong with these idiots?

Silly question.

If their illnesses are able to be linked to their paid work during the period immediately after the towers fell, why wouldn't they already be covered under some sort of worker's compensation fund? If they are covered, then why the need for this bill?

Not sure how many folks actually volunteered their time to work after the towers came down. I know there were a number of volunteers, but it would be interesting to know. I would understand the need for the bill if it covered folks without other forms of coverage.

Very thankful for everyone's efforts in the days and months after 9/11. My Dad spent six months in NYC after the towers fell, volunteering with the Red Cross, helping folks find new places to live, etc.

The party of no and get Obama.

Hank, did you ever get in trouble for plagerism in school?

Most people use quotation marks and reference the source when they are copying and pasting.

I know that there is a lot of disaster related fraud. Dad has worked on just about every major natural and man-made disaster in the US in the past 10 years as a disaster relief coordinator for the Red Cross.

In response to the level of fraud that happened after Katrina and 9/11, and more than a few others, the Red Cross, FEMA, and a number of other relief organizations share information via a database to eliminate double coverage.

I looked up the bill, via google, and it was interesting to see the two polarized views of this bill. It also looks like the (R) from the midwest wants the bill to go through committee, rather than have it be fast tracked. That actually sounds like a great idea, so as to eliminate double coverage and a waste of resources.

It has been 9 years since this happened. Does the bill really need to be run through at breakneck speed? Why does it need to be fast tracked without going through committee?

Sounds like both sides are playing games, as usual.

"Most people use quotation marks and reference the source when they are copying and pasting."

It's from the conservative rag called the National Review. The magazine's current editor is Rich Lowry. Many of the magazine's commentators are affiliated with think-tanks such as the Heritage Foundation and American Enterprise Institute. Prominent guest authors have included Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, and Sarah Palin in the online and paper edition.

That's why he didn't want to reference the source because it would call into question the content.

Didn't take long for this to be made into yet another D vs. R debate. But what nobody is addressing is if this is really needed, and if so why. Specifics.

If there is a need, and it is not already covered by other programs, state the needs. Is there some sort of group that is not covered by worker's comp?

If there is a reason for urgency and skipping committee, then state why.

Instead, most folks are content to sling poo at each other rather than discuss the information behind the bill.

That's pretty much what it is R's versus D's. The court settlement would only compensate those that are sick today not tomorrow. Workers comp would be leaving the state of NY to foot the bill well into the future and I'm sure would not cover volunteers. I suspect if that is the case then the lawsuits have just begun.

Here's what CBS reported back in July so I'm assuming the rush is to get it in before the R's take over and stall/kill it:

"GOP critics branded the bill as yet another big-government "massive new entitlement program" that would have increased taxes and possibly kill jobs.

To pay the bill's estimated $7.4 billion cost over 10 years, the legislation would have prevented foreign multinational corporations incorporated in tax haven countries from avoiding tax on income earned in the U.S.

Bill supporters said that would close a tax loophole. Republicans branded it a corporate tax increase.

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg called the vote an "outrage." He said it was clearly a tactic designed to stall the bill.

"This is a way to avoid having to make a tough decision," Bloomberg said, adding that the nation owes more to "the people who worked down at 9/11 whose health has fallen apart because they did what America wanted them to do."

John Feal, a ground zero demolition worker who has lobbied extensively for the legislation, expressed disgust.

"They pulled the rug out from beneath our feet," Feal said. "Whatever member of Congress vote against this bill, whether Republican or Democrat, should go to jail for manslaughter.""

From what I've been reading, it wouldn't bar folks who have previously received compensation from settlements, etc from receiving additional compensation for something they were already paid for.

It looks like an expensive piece of legislation meant to make people feel good. If it was something that would cover folks already not covered or compensated, I don't see an issue, but it looks like a duplication of coverage/benefits/settlements, etc. What I am still missing is a specific need.

Put a catchy name on it, make people feel sorry, and let an agency that has so far only managed grants manage this project? I think more critical thinking needs to be done by Congress and the American public. Maybe Santa will grant me that wish for Christmas?

"The court deal shares some similarities with the aid program that the federal legislation would have created, but it involves far less money. Only the most seriously ill of the thousands of police officers, firefighters and construction workers suing New York City over their exposure to the dust would be eligible for a hefty payout."

"The compensation system set up by the court would make payments ranging from $3,250 for people who aren't sick but worry they could fall ill in the future to as much as $1.5 million to the families of people who have died. Nonsmokers disabled by severe asthma might get between $800,000 and $1 million."


This looks to me like if you settle then you are on your own. $3,250 is nothing if you come down with cancer and it may sound like a lot but 1 to 1.5 mil isn't gravy retirement for a healthy person my age let alone a young sick person. Can you even get medical insurance after something like this these days?

This is looking like life insurance after the fact. Why is the government paying life insurance proceeds? Why the need to settle with someone who has died? I understand that 9/11 was a deeply sad and tragic day, but I never really understood why the families of the folks killed on the planes and in the towers or Pentagon received a large cash pay-out. I'm sure many of them had additional life insurance as well.

I remember when I was just a lowly reserve deputy that I had a hefty life insurance policy made available to me, in addition to the policies I had at work.

It looks like a trial lawyers aid bill more than a first responder's aid bill. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the fact that these folks were there and did the hard work after the fact, but if my dad died, I wouldn't expect .GOV to send me a big check because he got sick working there. I'd expect his life insurance company to do what his policy said.

With the new healthcare law, ins't there supposed to be a portion that eliminates issues from pre-existing conditions?

Again, for folks who were on the clock, I would expect worker's comp to step in. I know folks, like the firefighter recently in the news, receive lump sum settlements, etc. when permanently disabled due to work related illnesses and injuries.

Does making a tragedy into a lottery make it all better?

Being a first responder, I and most others I know are against it. We are paid to do a job that is inherently dangerous, and we are all aware of it. Everyone is proud of the heroic job these people did, but unfortunately some have decided to make a living out of victim status. On the other hand, the union tells us we should support it because it's "free money". At some point the exploitation of the tragedy has to stop.

Are you covered for acts of terrorism? I know my house isn't. Pretty sure my life insurance doesn't cover war or terrorism. I suppose another way to look at it is should each state foot the bill for an attack against the US?

Hankster, if you want anyone to read through your entire posts you should change your avatar.

Merry Christmas!

Stlhead,

The first responders were doing work in the line of their normal duties, so they should be covered by their insurance.

The answer is yes. The members asked, and the union pushed for policies to include acts of terrorism. Also might add that FEMA and other funds, in part, cover said events.

During 9/11 more money was donated by the public, and appropriated by the government than was used initially, of course politicians couldn't let money sit idle, so it was eventually spent on such projects as repairs on Central Park so that 9/11 victims had a place to reflect. What a crock. Also, don't forget, since 9/11 most large fire departments/districts have essentially had blank checks to fund any little thing they want. Like I've said, this tragedy has been exploited enough already. Everybody has been compensated or turned down compensation in an effort to receive more.

Looks like they performed a major overhaul of the bill, limiting attorney's fees even further, and shortening the duration from 20 to 5 years. They reduced the overall costs as well, trimming out some of the fat. Haven't seen the synopsis of the bill yet.

So if they are well compensated by their current benefits/insurance why are 10,000+ sueing? Another 5,000 are potential hold outs. Seems BD thinks they are all just greedy.

Not sure. Haven't seen the suits. Will this legislation fix that lawsuit issue? It could be that a trial lawyer filed a class action suit, got a list of names, and a number of folks opted in.

Attorney we know in our community filed a suit against Behr Paints. Ended up going class action. Essentially, they don't have to work again for the rest of their lives if they didn't want to.

I don't object to attorneys getting paid for their work, but again we have an example of an issue turned into yet another lottery. I object to that.

They already settled in early December. Over 625 million plus continued care of any ailments that are caused by the disaster. I get the feeling your not well read on this subject, besides, the main reason for rejection of this bill is the riders that are attached to it.

Awesome! I knew it was Bush's fault.

Thanks for the chuckle.

Yeah it was settled. 95% of the 10,000+ accepted. So there's still 5,000 plus out there.

The Zadroga bill
"bars ailing responders from double-dipping on payouts from the recent 9/11 health settlement."

So BD what's your problem with it besides a general accusation of greed?
I wouldn't accept $3,200 if I saw my buddies coming down with ailments.
Did you want Corps to continue to have an off shore tax haven?

First, people are compensated by severity of ailment. Some show no effectsat this time, but want large payouts in case they get sick years later. I want first responders appropriately compensated, but the original bill had no safeguards for fraud or attorneys getting rich off the lawsuits. My main objection was lack of safeguards, many were fixed in the recent rewrite, and the riders, weighing this bill down with unnecessary pork.

From NBC news.

"In 1998, President Clinton announced, “We will use all the means at our disposal to bring those responsible to justice, no matter what or how long it takes.”

NBC News has obtained, exclusively, extraordinary secret video, shot by the U.S. government. It illustrates an enormous opportunity the Clinton administration had to kill or capture bin Laden. Critics call it a missed opportunity.

The tape proves the Clinton administration was aggressively tracking al-Qaida a year before 9/11. But that also raises one enormous question: If the U.S. government had bin Laden and the camps in its sights in real time, why was no action taken against them?"

More than one person to blame.

A few more folks

From Slate.

"Now it's time to note that a similar set of documents shows that Reagan also played a major role in bringing on the terrorist war that followed—specifically, in abetting the rise of Osama Bin Laden.

(Jimmy Carter and his national security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, had started assisting the resistance, but with not nearly the same largess or ambition.)"

Everybody had a hand in this pile of crap. Looks like Jimmy Carter actually started it.

From what I read victims must file claims for loss which means there must be proof. You can't file a claim because you might get sick later. However, there will be monitoring and health coverage in case you do get sick.

What I can't find yet, now that the Reps have got their hands on it, is exactly how it's now going to be paid for. I'm betting the off shore tax haven will be intact after all is said and done which is a rip off of the tax payer.

I agree in their right to ask for settlement, I just don't think they necessarily should be winning any large lottery settlment. Again, while I've heard that they pared back the bill from the original offering, so that it actually gets things done and doesn't line too many pockets, I haven't seen the bill as amended.

If that smiling peanut farmer hadn't started the whole issue by funding Bin Laden's guys, or if Clinton would have taken Osama out after the Cole bombing or the embassy bombing, we wouldn't be talking about this mess either.

So in your vien of thought, going back to the beginning, and who is to blame, every president beginning with Jimmy Carter played a role in 9/11. I figured you implicating Bush took care of dad and son, and Reagan played a significant part too. I didn't find information going back further than that, but I am completely willing to throw Nixon and Ford under the bus if they shared some blame as well. LBJ and JFK are open targets for me as well.

I don't understand why you insist on only highlighting the failure of republicans when there is equal or larger blame to be shouldered by democrats. I must be that your loyalty to a single partyy clouds your judgement. Me, I think they are all assholes, not worthy of my trust or admiration.

Or had the Government been honest and forthright in regards to the actual dangers, first responders could have used respirators and other appropriate breathing apparatus during the recovery operations.

I believe that they should have worn protective gear. Why anyone in their right mind wouldn't do so, regardless of what anybody says, even the .GOV., I don't understand.

Now the folks who were there immediately after the towers came down, I can understand an urgency to act, and maybe they would forget their gear in case they could save just one more life by acting quickly, but as the efforts continued, I don't see why there wasn't gear on site.

Kk, your an idiot! The first responders had respirators, and SCBA's. The chose not to wear them out of stress, being tired, worrying about others more than themselves, not caring at the time, not thinking about the consequences etc. Common sense tells you not to breathe all that dust in, even if you thought it was just "dirt". While I'm not blaming the first responders, nobody had to lie to them. Go back to huffing bug spray with your armadillo hat.

Is that all you've got pansy ass? Picking on my iphones spell check, which always seems to change you're to your? You can't even stay on topic, or add anymore to the conversation? Your goats deserve better...

ITG alert!!

First responders include police whom I'm quite positive did not have respirators.

About the EPA being coerced you can start your research here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stat...ion_controversy

This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page.
It needs additional references or sources for verification. Tagged since September 2009.
It may require general cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Tagged since September 2009.

So you folks are saying you shouldn't trust what .GOV says? That's my line.

You can click on the OOIG report which is in PDF format on that link and go from there. If you notice it is a .GOV link.

First, most police officers have respirators in the trunk of their cars, let me qualify that by saying all the hazmat drills I've ever done, there were always respirators or masks in the cars.

He said/she said on Wikipedia is hardly proof. Point is, everybody knew breathing the dust must be harmful in some way, but they did it anyway. Nobody made or decieved anyone into not wearing appropriate gear.

Most would not be all would it? I highly doubt every NYC police responder had access to a respirator during 9/11. Prove otherwise.

Here's the link for the reading impaired:

http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2003/WTC_report_20030821.pdf

I suppose the next argument is the Inspector General is a liar.

I'm not doubting the report from the EPA from 2003. I'm not doubting that there may have been mis-statements as to the health of the air, but for god's sake, knowing that the dust contained essentially pulverized remains of the 2,700 or so folks who perished. How on earth could that be safe?

I'm actually just poking fun at you guys for sounding like some right wing/libertarian conspiracty theorists.

This is why many folks like me mistrust the word of .GOV. Analyze and verify. Don't take their bait.

Present.

From what I have heard several are sick enough that they can no longer work, there fore they loose their insurance.

Illness caused by a work related injury is covered, especially if you cannot work any more. That is the idea behind workers compensation insurance. I am fully in support of extending workers comp benefits to anybody injured.