GOP kills 9/11 first responders bill

Remove all ads!

That this is a "NY state" issue is misleading. This goes more to the heart of the national health care debate. Cancer treatment can cost well over a million dollars, and of course the health care providers have no problem "sucking the well dry." Nevertheless, most insurance, even when they pay, only covers 80 percent. How much is 20 percent of 1 million dollars? Plus deductibles, plus out-of-work loss of income, and you get the picture pretty quick of the sorry state of health care in this country.

As much as there is all the hate at NY, mostly because of regional haterd that still goes on here, states are just like any other employer (which isn't saying much anyway).

You think it's just NY? Don't count on it. My dad was a Harris Country cop, and retired as one with a nice pension and full health care benefits. Because he was sitting pretty personally, he is one of those hard core conservatives who didn't get the complaints about health care coverage. Well, out of the blue, he got his letter last year that cancelled his full health care benefits because they were "too expensive" and was told, simply, "sign up for Medicare." He gets it now.

 

and

Here's the issue for me. There was a lot of chest-thumping about how those who worked at ground zero were heroes of equivalent stature to those serving in the military, and many who worked at ground-zero were just as heroic as those on tours in Iraq and/or Afghanistan.

But that is precisely where I think the distinction lies. I have never served, so certianly T2, Drew, and others that have can correct me if I'm wrong here. As far as I'm aware, any injury/illness a person suffers while on active duty is covered by the Army/Navy/etc. If an illness suffered while active forces one to retire, they can still receive treatement through the Army. I was also under the impression that people who served for 20 years were able to receive treatment for life at a VA for a significantly reduced fee than what you'd pay at most hospitals.

The 9/11 workers have been unable to work, got laid off, lost their medical coverage, and now are essentially SOL. While I realize that we attempt to draw a parallel to ground zero workers and soldiers, the fact remains that they are NOT, in fact, soldiers. I would also hazard to guess that while there are many fire fighters that give their lives on the job every year, that the relative danger associated with fighting fires is significantly lower than the relative danger facing a US soldier on the frontlines of Afghanistan. And I don't say that to minimize the service fire fighters provide. All I'm saying is that we should not necessarily expect to see the same kind of benefits as soldiers, because they aren't.

 

Sorry, in my opinion first responders are more heroic, despite the "chest thumping" of those who claim otherwise. In fact, civilians in Iraq have it worse than the typical field soldier.

What first responders did was more hazardous and dangerous than your typical soldier in the field. In fact, when a soldier does something as bold as a first responder, he/she is often awarded a special medal for that kind of risk and service for others in the field.

First responders have the most dangerout jobs of ANY government employee, at least that I can tell.

Plus, we have not started to figure in those who are dying of cancer and related illness (there were some 14 thousand first responders). We lost this many soldiers only after several YEARS of actual combat.

It seems a bit sorry, nay tragic, that we have to play the game of "who has it more dangerous" relating to those who give their lives for their fellow citizens. But I guess that is what we have finally come to.

 

In my country firemen, cops and soldiers receive the same care in case of work related injury or ailment. Opting out of care later because it is too expensive would actually be illegal.

At the time I did my military service, I had some contact with firemen and cops and our equivalent of FEMA, the THW, and the tacit sentiment generally was that we were in the same business generally, just in different fields. That helped for instance when drunk or otherwise unruly soldiers encountered police, which was somewhat understanding. That sentiment again became palpable when we did disaster relief during a Rhine flood. Police, firemen, soldiers and THW working hand in glove.

 

Well, it's obvious that politics is the big thing here. It's not really based upon practical reality, but who has to pay up, despite the practical, and obvious benefits that you point out. Any "political techincality" will suffice to pass the check (let's scour the Constitution with a fine tooth comb, until we find an excuse not to pay). Add to that political, regional dislike and that makes it even easier to pass the bill: "Texas pays more than it's fair share;" "NY gets a free ride," blah, blah, blah, much like my three children complaing about each other. It goes on, and on, and on....

 

I'm not arguing that the losses to first responders on 9/11 exceeded the losses of any single day - or even any single year - of the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan. I don't think we've had 1,000 US soldiers die in Iraq in a given calendar year, so yes, I agree that we'd need at least 3 years of casaulties to add up to that amount. I was only pointing out that the typical day in the life of a soldier in Afghanistan or Iraq is more dangerous than the typical day in the life of a fire fighter. Fire fighters don't have to worry about driving over an IED on the ride to work for example.

I will further concede that health care for 14,000 people cannot be a ton of money. In terms of deficit cutting, it wouldn't even save a fraction of a fraction of a percent to fund the entire effort. Furthermore, it's not like all 14,000 of them are ill.

The question I ask is why are we so worried about these particular 14,000 Americans? There are people every day who get sick, are out of work, have no health care, and are also SOL. You can argue all you want that these particular 14,000 are owed a debt by society for what they've done. But if you're not into the game of valuing some lives higher than others, than what about the 40,000,000 people with no health insurance at all? Of that, about 1/4 of whom are children who aren't even old enough to get a job to have the money to buy insurance? Are they less deserving because they aren't dead yet, or less deserving because the illness they contracted wasn't the result helping others? It's sad that we don't help the first responders out, but I cannot get worked up about this. To me it's a drop in the bucket.

 

No, but when there is a fire they will run smack into it to attempt to save the life of a child, or someone who is trapped, often at extreme risk to themselves. Soldiers never intentially run over an IED, but a fireman do what it takes to save someone in an emergency situation.

Those of us who have been fighting for health care reform know this full well, which is why many of us WANT reform for everyone. But you would think that those who have gotten ill in the service of their citizens can expect us to do the same for them. I mean, come on, they put themselves on the line for us and we can't even get them treatment? WTF?!

If we can't think of them in compassionate terms, think how it benefits you to take care of them. The next life they save may be yours, or someone you love. I wouldn't want them to think twice about it with the lives of my kids at stake. But yes, we need reasonable health care for everyone, but after the way things went last year, good luck with that one. Unfortunately, now it's every man for himself, and damn the next person.

 

Just to play devil's advocate: Both the soldier and the fireman have chosen to place themselves at risk. If you don't want to have to dodge bullets, or enter a burning building in an effort to save others, why did you chose that profession?

 

So the question to be asked is why would the first responders be exposed to anything different than the other people caught in the city when the towers fell? To be brutally honest, the actual first responders were casualties of the collapse and we're actually talking about (for the vast majority) those members of the police and fire departments who were far enough away to survive but were still caught in the dust cloud. But so were millions of others. Why would anyone think the emergency responders were so different than the rest of the populace? The same dust and debris blanketed the entire city.

I understand the general stance of "everyone has a right to medical care" but why handle these people differently than anyone else in New York at the time? Why would anyone think they were more traumatized than other portions of the populace?

 

I would think the answer to this question is obvious. When the rest of the city was trying to get away from the danger, first responders were going toward it. When the rest of the city was taking cover indoors from the dustcloud, the first responders were out on the streets - breathing the air - helping people and trying to get them indoors. That NYC was unprepared for such an event is well known, and the first responders had to suit up despite a major shortage of proper safety equipment (breathing masks, modern walkie-talkies, etc.). They were out in the open, getting sh*t done, when no one knew if another attack was going to come at any minute. Furthermore, the rest of the city wasn't duty-bound keep themselves outdoors, exposing themselves to more of the harmful particulates in the air. In fact, many of these guys volunteered to take on double and triple shifts. Sure, much of the city found itself in harms way that day. But these guys STAYED there for several weeks. They were heroes to the whole country, not just New York.

I really don't understand why this is an issue for anyone, especially Republicans. If anyone is owed a hero's debt for the part they played in the aftermath of 9/11, it's these guys. What's so perplexing to me is that Republican politicians have had no problem (shamelessly) wrapping themselves in all things 9/11 every chance they got for the last 10 years. This should be no different. The only difference I see here is that this bill is something Obama supports, and therefore should be opposed, no matter how counter-intuitive said opposition is.

 

Exactly, DR.

I think there are two things:

1. Southern Republicans, who have a strong dislike of the NE are opposed to helping them because of regional animosity.

2. The large patron of the Republican Party, the Business Chamber of Commerce is opposed to it, so naturally some Republicans are as well.

 

Maybe I'm being overly cynical, but I think it's much simpler than that. I have little doubt this would have passed with flying colors when Bush was still in office. It would have been seen as the patriotic thing to do. But this Republican congress have made no secret of the fact that their number one priority is Barack Obama's humiliation and defeat. If any issue or initiative - even one that, all things being equal, Republicans would typically and historically have championed themselves - can be sacrificed to achieve that end, it seems worth it to them. START is one example, this is another.

 

That's a reasonable explanation DR, but I'm not sure how accurate it is with regard to this bill (you're also stereotyping and not all the first responders were exposed to that extent). There is a fairly large portion of the US that is starting to believe anyone associated with 9/11 is out to get their piece of the pie.

If the responders have valid claims they should file for workman's comp. If the state of New York is claiming the responders are malingering why is the federal government trying to bypass the issue? If they are not malingering why isn't the federal government stepping in with more appropriate regulative authority?

 

I almost neg-repped you for making me look up "malingering." You know how I hate putting out effort.

Good point. If they were NYPD or FDNY, they surely already have. Problem is, they were only two groups of the many who came in to help. Red Cross and Salvation Army workers from all over the country, search and rescue crews, medical professionals including EMTs, paramedics, doctors, nurses and therapists (not on the city payroll), construction workers, crane operators, food service personnel, iron workers, sanitation workers, building cleaners, National Guard and other members of the military, not to mention volunteer New Yorkers - they all poured into the city to pitch in in the immediate aftermath and stayed for months. Workman's comp wouldn't necessarily apply to everyone. Also, it's important to note that workman's comp only applies if you're being paid to be there. Many were volunteers.

The short answer is NY state's immense budget shortfall. This is one of the things that have been cut. I'm also concerned about fraud....er, malingerers, as you are. But it's my understanding that there are mandatory screening procedures written into the bill to prevent that.

Yes. The name for that portion is "a**holes."

---------- Added 0 hours, 14 minutes and 31 seconds later... ----------

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/t...st-responders-react-to-the-senate-filibuster/

Not sure the best way to embed this, but I think anyone in this thread should watch this.

 

Bringing up fraud in discussion like this is very common a last resort and sadly very often succesful. Basically it works to say: "Let's not help anyone cause a few people cheat" well what the peopel who use this argument say and often mean is that many if not most cheat while all studies that has been done on cheating benefit system shows it is a negligable number.

 

The Chamber opposed it, as has been pointed out by Ragusa:

http://jonathanturley.org/2010/12/1...have-against-911-first-responders/#more-29645

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/12/17/chamber-911-responders/

 

Right. Vote for me and I will do nothing and in doing so I'll destroy the eeeeeeevil federal government - as if that would benefit anyone. Electing Perry or the people he is speaking to into DC is akin to giving a pyromaniac a lighter.

Deluded fools like him are the greatest threat to America today, not the Bin Ladens of the world. Their mindless extremism causes more damage than Bin Laden ever could.

I shudder to think what Perry Republicans would do today to the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. The horror.

 

I will say this: at least it deals with the problem directly instead of giving the State the money and hoping they spend it wisely.

I realize that this is a devil's advocate arguement, but it's also a deeply flawed one. Does choosing the job mean you don't deserve health benefits for it? Does choosing the job mean you don't deserve compensation of any kind? That's essentially what you're arguing. Why bother to ask for pay, you chose the job. Why bother to ask for an office, you chose the job. Why bother to ask for a firetruck, or hydrants conveniently placed along the road, you chose the job.

The job isn't getting yourself killed. The job is saving other people's lives. They didn't choose to die honorably. They chose to help others. Minimizing the risk associated with that is perfectly justified.

 

I do agree with DR that a large element of this Republican opposition does stem from the "oppose everything Obama wants" tactic. It's all well and good to say the Chamber of Commerce also opposed ending the tax loophole, but I view them as more the fallguy/scapegoat for something Republicans would have liked to do anyway.

The "they chose their job" statement (and as I admitted from the start I was playing devil's advocate) was not meant to imply that they shouldn't have equipment, or shouldn't try to minimize the risk of their job. It was meant to illustrate two things:

1. There is an inherent level of risk associated with being a fireman (or soldier, police officer, etc) that is not associated with most other professions. I'm extremely unlikely to die while performing my job. I'd have a better chance of getting killed in a car accident commuting back and forth to work than getting killed performing my duties at work.

With a fireman, there isn't a totally safe way to enter a building enguled in flames. There are some pretty obvious unsafe ways to do it, but there are no means of completely mitigating that risk. Dying isn't "part of the job", or on the list of "expected duties", but anyone with such a career realizes that such a possibility is much greater for them than most other possible career choices.

2. If you lose your job, you also typically lose all benefits, including medical care associated with it, even if you developed an illness while you were still covered. Worker's comp is usually different - AFAIK, it's next to impossible to fire someone on worker's comp - unless you don't mind getting sued. The point is, when you're out of benefits, a fireman is just as SOL as anyone without a job, and without medical benefits who also happens to be ill.

 

Not scapegoat, and much less fall guy. Instigator and party to collusion is far more apt. After all, lobbyists are an active party to the legislative process, that's what's justifying their salaries.

In addition to that, the money the chamber spends for (or against) a candidate is a (dis)incentive. They gave Republicans an extra reason, meaning that Republicans were easy to persuade. The chamber has in the past run ads against Republicans who were in favour of taxes (iirc against Huckabee for his support for a state tobacco tax). Since that faithful Supreme court decision that found that corporations are people too, they are no longer just limited to that. They can nowadays directly fund opposing candidates (think: tea party).

And then, a lobbyist who would happen to drop the name of companies benefiting from such tax loopholes, well, he may just end up giving, naturally inadvertently, investment advice.