GOP kills 9/11 first responders bill

Remove all ads!

I've heard a lot of this sort of logic recently, and I see one major problem. It's in reverse, and logic in reverse doesn't always work. For example, by your logic, we're giving subsidies to everyone except the uber-rich, because we're not asking them to pay as much as 'everyone else' does. Do you think the US government is subsidizing the middle class by not taxing the hell out of them? Is the German government subsidizing you by the same? You see, your logic starts with the idea that this is the government's money to begin with, that your money is their money to begin with. I don't know how the German government is set up, I don't know much about it's formation, but the American government is set up on rather the reverse principle:

That's not the behavior of someone who owns the money. That's the behavior of a stewart taking care of someone else's money.

Sorry if I confused you there. I suppose I should have caveated that or something. That was just a curiosity I was noting, not any kind of accusation with regards to this bill. My mind wanders some times.

 

Oh please. The US has, like most western countries, a progressive income taxation (which has nothing to do with Progressivism). This means taxation follows taxable income. Say people earning 1-100k $ pay x%, 100k to 250k pay y% (which is more than x%) etc pp. That's usually how it goes. Progressive taxes attempt to reduce the tax incidence of people with a lower ability-to-pay, as they shift the incidence increasingly to those with a higher ability-to-pay. The idea again is about fairness.

You start to subsidise people when you grant tax breaks that break down this basic progression of the taxation and indeed tax for instance the second group less than the first one, based on the assertion that the latter are the driving forces of the economy and thus will boost business - a golden shower trickling down from the prosperous on the hoi polloi below. Trickle down economics and progressive taxation are thus inherently in friction, and it is no surprise that those who propagate trickle down economics try their best to subvert progressive taxation.

Another way to subsidise a certain group of people in a subtle way would be by lowering taxation for capital gains, and cover that up by making sure everyone has capital gains, say forcing everyone into the stock exchange, say because of a need to have a 401K. Now who benefits more, some guy with his 401K or a large corporation that holds half a billion in stock that produces taxable returns?

 

I'm somewhat torn on this issue -- probably because I don't understand why it is an issue. The first responders already had health care and the federal government just passed a bill to eliminate health care ceilings; why do they need additional money for health care?

This should be covered under worker's comp (i.e., no out of pocket expense to the emergency responders). Once again, I guess I don't understand why this should even be an issue or why there should be a bill.

 

What!? Insurance companies refusing to pay? I've never heard of that? Not in this country. And we've NEVER had a scandal involving the health care and treatment for our veterans either. All those on the frontlines receive the "first class" treatment, especially from our "patriotic" insurance companies.

 

T2,
the sicknesses for the 9/11 responders are not covered by workers comp, largely because of workers comp conditions and the inevitable resulting bickering about pre-existing conditions and the like i.e. it is about liability reduction. Treatment costs money. What if the person in question who worked in the rubble of the WTC and now has cancer or a lung ailment also smoked? A lawyer tasked to do so can and will make a case as for why there is doubt to whether the condition is work related or not.

I read that military doctors examining veterans from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars were under apparent guidelines to classify their patients in a way that reduces liability, and that was under a 'We just luv ze troopz!' Republican administration.

From a Navy Times article:

The set of problems of caring for 9/11 relief workers is comparable to the problems here, and so are the solutions and approaches taken. Like it or not, but liability reduction is a factor. Unfair considering the sacrifice.

 

Then to me the solution would be to redefine what is and is not covered -- that would have been the appropriate legal action.

 

How about if we just take care of those who are sick and need treatment, or are dying?

 

That's what charities are all about. We all donate to those organizations we feel are most important -- I don't believe it would have been appropriate for the government to "donate" our money in this case. There is clearly a legal issue involving the city and state of New York not honoring their workman's comp cases and it should not be the responsibility for the other 49 states to pick up the slack.

 

Last time I checked we were all Americans. It's funny to hear you guys holding up 9/11 as some "national cause," [America was Attacked!] but then comment that "it's really NYC's problem." But you can make whatever excuses makes you feel comfortable with this issue. I really don't care, since you put it so bluntly.

I'm sure a responder will think about that next time he/she volunteers to his life on the line.

 

Being one of those people who has volunteered to put his life on the line I still feel it's not an issue for the federal government to dump money into. The pentagon was also attacked on 9/11 and there's nowhere near as much rue and cry over the survivors in DC and the families of the victims. This IS a New York thing.

 

I just think it is crazy that getting treatment is an issue at all. If you get sick or injured you get treatment, we help each other. Is that not to the benefit of all? What is it people are afraid of? The only difference in if you pay for health care through tax or through insurance is that you cut out a middleman and is certain to get your treatment without any hassle or struggle with the insurance company. If it is a pain to get 300$ from an insurance company to pay for a broken car window I can only imagine the hassle it is to get $300k for cancer treatment. This with veterans and rescue workers just hight light how bizarre the system is. On the other hand I guess rich people are more worthy of care and the rest of the suckers can doesn't deserve it for being worthless leeches on the body of society.

 

Well, yes. You have told us many times of that. And thank you for your service. If you ever become ill or need treatment, you can be sure that I will feel the same and argue just the same on this issue, that you should have the proper care regardless of if it is the grateful nation and its citizens, or "charity" who provides it for you.

I understand that that is your opinion. We just see this differently, since I believe that we are ALL Americans.

Welcome to American health care for "profit." Check Regusa's definition of "GOP."

Well yes, we are assured that there is "charity" offered in return for their service....

 

And there's a problem with that logic as well. These companies don't fit into the existing tax structure. That's the problem. What's being talked about, as I understand it, is actually creating a new tax to fit them into that structure. It's like, if there were no corporate tax, and corporations weren't taxed, then suddenly adding a new tax for corporate entities that tried to fit them into the existing progressive personal income tax system. It's not necessarily right, or the best option. Not to say that it isn't right or the best option, just that it isn't necessarily so. It's not 'justice', or ending a subsidy, it's just taxation.

The issue comes up when there are limited services, which particularly become a problem when medical treatment becomes high-tech. High-tech, pretty much by definition, means limited availability, either by raw resources, production, or expertice. When the idea arises that you have a right to the best treatment, and that the doctors have a responsability to do everything they can, and when "everything they can" includes radiation therapy, chemotherapy, expensive drugs, and complex surgeries, that means costly, and more costly the more people need it, and that money has to come from somewhere.

Even in single-payer systems, there is rationing for availability, often done by age or some kind of 'percieved potential benefit to society' or some such. There's a lot of debate as to what's 'fair', but honestly I don't think either side has a fix on that title. It's just a question of past proven merit vs future (poorly) estimated merit. For this instance, it unfortunately falls down to who's going to pay.

 

And Katrina was a New Orleans thing? Just like The Next Big Quake™ will be a San Francisco and LA thing? Nothing of that concerns the rest of the country in any way?

You forget that such mass damage and mass casualty events simply overwhelm local communities, even large and relatively affluent ones as NY, and that applies equally for manpower in the short run as it does financially in general. For NY 9/11, like Katrina for New Orleans, is something they cannot pay out of their running budget since it never planned for having to pay for this. And that is not due negligence on part of the cities but because neither the events or their actual scope have been foreseen.

 

Also, there were many volunteers who came from all over the country to help out. Many of those who are now sick, are more than likely not covered by their local "workman's comp," so I guess they rely on "charity" for help? Nice. It's good to know that we are a nation "united" - Even in the face of outside, foreign attacks? Note, Ragusa, that in your link with Huckabee that his friend was from Texas. Normally, I would be glad that many citizens of our state did not see this as a just a "NY problem...."

 

We have paid for it. We, as a country paid a lot, we gave a lot in charity, we covered the vast majority through taxes. This is actually a small part of the overall payment and New York is simply not covering their own employees.

The vast majority of the disaster from Katrina could have been avoided had the state of Louisiana and the the City of New Orleans taken the US up on their offer to upgrade the levee system -- the US was going to fund the lion's share, while the city and state would be required to contribute as well. Both the city and state refused (this went on for years). Every other state along the Mississippi covers a portion of the cost to upgrade but Louisiana wanted special treatment. Well, ultimately, they got it.

Chandos, the disaster was not just a New York problem. But actually treating their employees with honor and compassion is a New York issue. New York has been compensated, they need to stop trying to suck the well dry.

 

Point is, are you willing to leave the 9/11 folks drift in the wind as a result of NYs apparent failure to cover them adequately?

 

So the real question turns out to be: should the federal government, which is itself in a sore spot, be bailing out state governments in sore spots? Because that'll be happening a lot pretty quickly.

 

They are not bailing out (no! no bailouts! never!) state governments but the 9/11 relief workers. Since these folks are not covered they so far have to pay their medical bills themselves. Treatment of the sort they require is expensive. Since they are often too sick to work, they can't earn money, ergo, they have problems paying their bills once their savings are consumed (and since they are ailing, they'll have difficulties replenishing them if they recover). The point is that they are helped little when aid arrives to help their relatives with the funeral costs and inherited debt.

If anyone deserves it they do. It is sensible to see it as bailing out the 9/11 relief workers, not at least since it helps over that apparent urge to let them walk the plank over some visceral and diffuse sentiments over state rights and (fiscal! fiscal!) responsibilities.

A nation is a solidarity community of citizens. Those calls that America stands together that were so popular in the time after 9/11 appear to have lost their appeal in an economic crisis. Come to think of it, 9/11 was almost a decade ago ... ancient history by American standards. Maybe America has moved on? The Republican party apparently has.

In their effort to deny Obama any victory they will kill any bill, no matter how reasonable, called for or necessary. Put inverse, GOP also stands for Politics Over Governance.

 

I've found that's true for all political parties.