And Republicans Do It Again

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Dec 18, 2010 8:53 pm

You guys want to explain this one away, and blame the left somehow? These folks were heroes until it costs a few bucks, huh.

The bill would provide funding for a health program to treat first responders, construction and cleanup workers and residents who inhaled toxic particles after the collapse of the World Trade Center towers.

The $7.4 billion cost of the legislation over 10 years is paid for by a provision that would prevent foreign multinational corporations from using tax havens to avoid taxes on U.S. income.

Senate GOP blocks 9/11 first responders health plan bill - The Hill's Healthwatch

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Dec 18, 2010 9:23 pm

Don't oversimplify this, RJ. Why has it taken over 9 years to bring this up? Both sides of The Party had ample opportunity to do this before today. Why didn't the Dems override? They have 60 votes, don't they?

The 9/11 First Responders ought to be taken care of. We owe them at least that much. But it wasn't just this minority group of repubs that ****ed this up. This is a bi-partisan effort spanning almost a decade.

librtyhead · Post by **librtyhead** » Sat Dec 18, 2010 9:38 pm

The Dems have more to lose in the upcoming 2012 elections. They are running in little mini circles looking for "cheese" and will blame everything on the incoming rush of others running in their own mini circles but in the opposite direction. I envision a massive 3 stooges convention being staged in Washington over the next few months.

Post by **LarsMac** » Sat Dec 18, 2010 10:26 pm

They can't blame the new guys for this, as they don't take office until next year.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sun Dec 19, 2010 4:48 am

Accountable;1347248 wrote: Don't oversimplify this, RJ. Why has it taken over 9 years to bring this up? Both sides of The Party had ample opportunity to do this before today. Why didn't the Dems override? They have 60 votes, don't they?

The 9/11 First Responders ought to be taken care of. We owe them at least that much. But it wasn't just this minority group of repubs that ****ed this up. This is a bi-partisan effort spanning almost a decade.They have been cared for by other means until now, but new funds are needed and its despicable that this has not passed. Republicans first held it up in the house in July by forcing a 2/3 vote and now that that has been overcome have done their dirty deed in the senate. There is no excuse for this, Acct, they are playing politics with the lives of these people. And yes, some of the republicans in the Democratic party are worth blaming as well.

From this past July:

9/11 Health Care Bill Voted Down in the House, Rep. Anthony Weiner Furious Over Outcome - DNAinfo.com

and this from january 2005:

RAND Report Details 9-11 Victims Compensation

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Dec 19, 2010 5:48 am

I remember the Weiner rant. That was epic!

Ahso! wrote: And yes, some of the republicans in the Democratic party are worth blaming as well.I spose that's as close to an admission of the truth as I'm going to get from such an uber partisan as yourself. I'm betting that there were those on both sides of the vote that held their fingers to the political winds in deciding how to vote & didn't give those heroes one second's thought.

I would expect you to castigate the dems who failed to toe your party line, rather than complain of repubs who've behaved consistently. Do you have their names?

Rand wrote: New York businesses have received 62 percent of the total compensation, reflecting the broad-ranging economic impacts of the attack in and near the World Trade Center. Among individuals killed or seriously injured, emergency responders and their families have received more than civilians and their families who suffered similar economic losses. On average, first responders have received about $1.1 million more per person than civilians with similar economic loss.

{...}

The attacks also killed or seriously injured 460 emergency responders.

{...}

Emergency responders killed or injured received a total of $1.9 billion, with most of that coming from the government. Payments averaged about $1.1 million more per person than for civilians with similar economic losses, with most of the higher amount due to payments from charities.This was in '05. I calculate an average $4.1 million per emergency responder. Add to that whatever additional compensation in the five years since.

OP link wrote: Republicans oppose the paid-for healthcare benefits bill because it closes a tax loophole on foreign companies.I wish you had found a less partisan article that had more analysis of the bill itself.

OP link wrote: Last week, Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) released a letter signed by every Senate Republican pledging to block all legislative action until Congress acts on the expiring Bush tax cuts and passes a measure to fund the federal government into 2011.It looks as if the repubs aren't the only ones playing politics. This is childish crap I see in the classroom every day. The dems saw a chance to put the repubs into a Catch-22 and went for it. Had they let it pass, the dems would have used that against them as well, though it wouldn't have had as much punch.

eta: How many first responders are left to receive this $7.4 billion?

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sun Dec 19, 2010 6:04 am

Reid had to vote no at the last second so he would be able to bring the vote up again in the future. Reid's vote makes it 58 dems voting for the measure. Heres another account. Sorry, but it's just not easy to find many articles that are not critical of repubs on this.

Advocates criticize Senate vote on 9/11 health care | atlanticville.gmnews.com | Atlanticville

As for my partisanship; I make it quite clear where I stand. I'm liberal, period, and democrats who are anything but liberal, I usually disagree with them too (and that puts me at odds with many democrats).

ignoreme · Post by **ignoreme** » Sun Dec 19, 2010 8:11 am

You know, I have no problem with the health care aspect of this bill. What concerns me is the rest of it. I think concerns over the "compensation" aspect of it are absolutely valid and I am glad that the bill has been stopped until that can be addressed further.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sun Dec 19, 2010 8:59 am

ignoreme;1347290 wrote: You know, I have no problem with the health care aspect of this bill. What concerns me is the rest of it. I think concerns over the "compensation" aspect of it are absolutely valid and I am glad that the bill has been stopped until that can be addressed further.What exactly do you mean, no more compensation should be allotted? Or should the compensation amount be reduced?

The thing is that AFAICT not one republican has voiced that as a concern or reason for filibustering the bill.

ignoreme · Post by **ignoreme** » Sun Dec 19, 2010 11:40 am

...Most Republicans refused to back the measure, calling it a "slush fund," and saying it was another example of Democratic overreach and an "insatiable" appetite for taxpayers' money.

The bill would spend $3.2 billion on health care over the next 10 years for people sickened from their exposure to the toxic smoke and debris of the shattered World Trade Center. It would spend another $4.2 billion to compensate victims over that span, and make another $4.2 billion in compensation available for the next 11 years.

"This legislation as written creates a huge $8.4 billion slush fund paid by taxpayers that is open to abuse, fraud and waste," said Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), arguing that it would be raided by undeserving scammers with tenuous links to 9/11.

Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.) cast it as a money grab for New York because the bill would pay for care at higher rates than Medicare. "What this is is politics," Shimkus said. "What this is is enfranchising a bunch of New York City hospitals."

"This fund is bloated," said Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.).

Texas Republican Joe Barton, leading debate for his side, said the GOP would back a smaller program, such as the $150 million a year the White House would like to spend...

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sun Dec 19, 2010 12:07 pm

From the talking points you provided, it sounds as though they are against the bill in general due to the amount of money. I guess Shimkus would like the people treated in a neighboring state at a lesser cost?

Of course terms such as "slush fund" and saying things like "it's an insatiable appetite for taxpayer money" is hyperbole.

Have you read anything independent and credible? The link below offers some explanations from the gop to the press. John Kyle looked rather uncomfortable on FOX news with Chris Wallace earlier today talking about the issue.

Senate Republicans Explain Their Vote Against 9/11 First Responder Health Care

ignoreme · Post by **ignoreme** » Sun Dec 19, 2010 12:25 pm

You're getting away from the issue that I raised ... put the medical costs aside. That's $3.2 billion. Let us even pretend that we can justfy it being paid at a rate higher than what is deemed acceptable medical care rates. I'm willing to brush all of that to the side. It's the other part. It's the other billions and billions of dollars that they want for "compensation" that has nothing to do with healthcare. That's where my issue lies. It also seems to be where the problem lies for many of our elected representatives. The matter is not dead. It absolutely will be addressed again. The Democrats just tried to force it through in a way that did not permit amendments. Didn't work. Now hopefully something that makes sense can be worked out. Truthfully, I doubt it will happen. Politicians as a group seem incapable of anything showing any real sense.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sun Dec 19, 2010 12:37 pm

The math you've offered is a bit fuzzy. First, if you add up what's in your second paragraph, that equals 11.6 billion, Smith says it's 8.4 billion, but the legislation calls for 7.4 billion, which BTW is completely paid for by closing some tax loopholes on international corporations. What's your objection since the money does not come out of any discretionary accounts that affects the American taxpayer?

You're opposed to compensation, that's not a debatable issue, it's your opinion which you have a right to. However, none of the quotes you've offered say any of those people are also opposed to compensation, only the total amount, which again, is completely paid for by closing loopholes.

ignoreme · Post by **ignoreme** » Sun Dec 19, 2010 12:45 pm

If there is money to be had, shouldn't it be used for much more urgent purposes? Or if these gray area compensation claims are somehow deemed to be the best use of this money, should there not be some specific guidelines determined for claims before just OKing the money? I call BS on the compensation part. There has already been an obscene amount of money paid out in compensation claims. It is time to start closing off that lottery. The healthcare should absolutely be taken care of. No question. Period.

I suppose you can tell me ... when does the current 9/11 fund expire? I recall hearing that one of the reasons for not stressing about getting this passed was because it wasn't an urgent item like the tax cuts situation was. I truly don't know.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sun Dec 19, 2010 1:09 pm

I'd hesitate saying what's been paid out to this point is obscene unless I was intimately familiar with all the stories and facts associated with everything. The amount is large, but so was the damage and injury to people and small businesses. I myself can't think of anything more urgent than caring for people who clearly put themselves in danger during an event such as 9/11 for the purpose of assisting others in such circumstances.

The health care portion is lifetime for the victims, I'd guess the compensation portion can't really be pinned down as there are situations where people are still becoming ill due to the event. For all we know, there may even be associated birth defects later on down the road. Has there, or will there be some abuse? Probably, but that's a fact of life - I'd guess and hope it remains minimal.

ignoreme · Post by **ignoreme** » Sun Dec 19, 2010 1:19 pm

You still did not answer my question. There have been funds in place helping people ... compensation funds, health funds, etc. What is the current status of those funds? And at what point do we stop paying "compensation" to the people of NY? Sure, it was a crappy thing that happened but there does come a point when enough is enough. And to keep it clear, I am talking about compensation not health care. I also happen to agree that any monies left available for any form of compensation must be made very difficult to get. We've seen time and time and time again how abused our money gets when we make it available in this sort of thing.

I can't help but wonder how strongly you fight for compensation for Desert Storm Veterans.

And I just realized what you typed ... so because there may someday possibly be a birth defect we should steal money from the taxpayers now?

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sun Dec 19, 2010 1:26 pm

How can I answer those questions without all the facts? I'd need to know more than is available on the internet. Sometimes you just have to trust the people who have been appointed to oversee a thing and understand there are additional layers of oversight. If you read some of the links I've left in the thread some of your questions may be answered there.

I'm a Vietnam era veteran myself who receives health care benefits through the GI Bill. It's one reason I'm all for socialized health care.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Dec 19, 2010 3:15 pm

So the bill isn't just for first responders, but anyone involved with 9/11? It's this kind of spin and mischaracterization that makes me wary of anything coming out of Washington. Every syllable has to be parsed & filtered to figure out what's really being said (and not said), and every detail has to be researched to find the real truth.

ignoreme · Post by **ignoreme** » Sun Dec 19, 2010 3:16 pm

Ok, since you aren't going to answer my questions I don't see much point in continuing. I've learned my lesson and I won't bother anymore.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sun Dec 19, 2010 3:22 pm

I've answered every question I can, but perhaps I missed one. So ask it again, and lets see. If I don't or can't try not to adopt the attitude that you're going to take your toys and go home. It's possible you may have to accept the fact that an answer is not available to you. That's life, son.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sun Dec 19, 2010 3:25 pm

Accountable;1347353 wrote: So the bill isn't just for first responders, but anyone involved with 9/11? It's this kind of spin and mischaracterization that makes me wary of anything coming out of Washington. Every syllable has to be parsed & filtered to figure out what's really being said (and not said), and every detail has to be researched to find the real truth.Where in the constitution is spin forbidden?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Dec 19, 2010 5:42 pm

Ahso!;1347359 wrote: Where in the constitution is spin forbidden?:wah: The point is that if something is important, it's important enough to lay out without obfuscating, spinning, or telling half-truths. The money was for 9/11 victims, there's no need to spin it any other way.

Post by **LarsMac** » Sun Dec 19, 2010 9:46 pm

The bill specifically addresses long-term health care needs for emergency responders and for residents of the area, whose health has been affected by the air pollution and air quality conditions that were a result of the WTC collapse.

Post by **LarsMac** » Sun Dec 19, 2010 9:47 pm

Just thought that it might be useful to get what the bill says, as opposed to what all the politicos and talking heads say about the bill.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sun Dec 19, 2010 10:53 pm

I left links, I can't force people to read them.

Post by **LarsMac** » Mon Dec 20, 2010 8:23 am

Just an, "Oh, by the way"

The $7.4 billion cost of the legislation over 10 years is paid for by a provision that would prevent foreign multinational corporations from using tax havens to avoid taxes on U.S. income.

it was mentioned earlier, but the conversation seems to indicate a belief that it is referring to foreign companies, somehow.

"multi-national companies" means such outfits as:

Bank of America, American Express, ExxonMobile, Cisco, IBM, Disney, ...etc.

I think we have found the source of the opposition among Republicans (and Dems)

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu Dec 23, 2010 8:30 am

Accountable;1347382 wrote: :wah: The point is that if something is important, it's important enough to lay out without obfuscating, spinning, or telling half-truths. The money was for 9/11 victims, there's no need to spin it any other way.Here's an example using something you're already against, so maybe it'll be easier for you to understand my point. I got an email from a friend linking me to this vid:

No need to watch it. Just believe me when I tell you that he points out that buried in the middle of the Healthcare Law is a provision for the President to call up his own forces to command a la Hitler's Brown Shirts. I searched out the section he mentioned.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-111h ... 3590pp.pdf

13 SEC. 5210. ESTABLISHING A READY RESERVE CORPS.

14 Section 203 of the Public Health Service Act (42

15 U.S.C. 204) is amended to read as follows:

16 ‘‘SEC. 203. COMMISSIONED CORPS AND READY RESERVE

17 CORPS.

18 ‘‘(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—

19 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—There shall be in the Service

20 a commissioned Regular Corps and a Ready Reserve

21 Corps for service in time of national emergency.

22 ‘‘(2) REQUIREMENT.—All commissioned officers

23 shall be citizens of the United States and shall be ap

24 pointed without regard to the civil-service laws and

1313

HR 3590 EAS/PP

1 compensated without regard to the Classification Act

2 of 1923, as amended.

3 ‘‘(3) APPOINTMENT.—Commissioned officers of

4 the Ready Reserve Corps shall be appointed by the

5 President and commissioned officers of the Regular

6 Corps shall be appointed by the President with the

7 advice and consent of the Senate.

8 ‘‘(4) ACTIVE DUTY.—Commissioned officers of the

9 Ready Reserve Corps shall at all times be subject to

10 call to active duty by the Surgeon General, including

11 active duty for the purpose of training.

12 ‘‘(5) WARRANT OFFICERS.—Warrant officers

13 may be appointed to the Service for the purpose of

14 providing support to the health and delivery systems

15 maintained by the Service and any warrant officer

16 appointed to the Service shall be considered for pur

17 poses of this Act and title 37, United States Code, to

18 be a commissioned officer within the Commissioned

19 Corps of the Service.

20 ‘‘(b) ASSIMILATING RESERVE CORP OFFICERS INTO

21 THE REGULAR CORPS.—Effective on the date of enactment

22 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, all indi

23 viduals classified as officers in the Reserve Corps under this

24 section (as such section existed on the day before the date

1314

HR 3590 EAS/PP

1 of enactment of such Act) and serving on active duty shall

2 be deemed to be commissioned officers of the Regular Corps.

I then looked for the amended section 203:

42 U.S.C. § 204 : US Code - Section 204: Commissioned corps; composition; appointment of Regular and Reserve officers; appointment and status of warrant officers

There shall be in the Service a commissioned Regular Corps and,

for the purpose of securing a reserve for duty in the Service in

time of national emergency, a Reserve Corps. All commissioned

officers shall be citizens and shall be appointed without regard to

the civil-service laws and compensated without regard to chapter 51

and subchapter III of chapter 53 of title 5. Commissioned officers

of the Reserve Corps shall be appointed by the President and

commissioned officers of the Regular Corps shall be appointed by

him by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. Commissioned

officers of the Reserve Corps shall at all times be subject to call

to active duty by the Surgeon General, including active duty for

the purpose of training and active duty for the purpose of

determining their fitness for appointment in the Regular Corps.

Warrant officers may be appointed to the Service for the purpose of

providing support to the health and delivery systems maintained by

the Service and any warrant officer appointed to the Service shall

be considered for purposes of this chapter and title 37 to be a

commissioned officer within the commissioned corps of the Service.

The reserve corps has been around since the end of WWI. Doctors have been reserve officers, I assume, since then or shortly thereafter. The amendment really changes nothing, and certainly doesn't establish any new force resembling the Brown Shirts of the 1930's. The result, for me, is to discount or completely disregard anything coming from these people. Now, they very well might be well-meaning people who think it necessary to scare people into action, but to lie and spin only weakens a message, especially when simple truth is strong enough condemnation.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Thu Dec 23, 2010 9:42 am

That guy is a gem. He understand Marxism because he was a Marine? :wah: Are you sure he is not a former member of FG? Why is he so frightened by civilians?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu Dec 23, 2010 5:20 pm

Ahso!;1347867 wrote: That guy is a gem. He understand Marxism because he was a Marine? :wah: Are you sure he is not a former member of FG? Why is he so frightened by civilians?
Did you really miss the point?

yaaarrrgg · Post by **yaaarrrgg** » Fri Dec 24, 2010 12:09 pm

I think the guy represents a big problem for the Tea Party. With the opposition to the "hate crimes" laws and talking about the dangers of homo's, he's a bit off his rocker. If churches want tax exempt status, they better be a church and not just a hate group pretending to be one.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Dec 24, 2010 12:15 pm

yaaarrrgg;1348114 wrote: I think the guy represents a big problem for the Tea Party. With the opposition to the "hate crimes" laws and talking about the dangers of homo's, he's a bit off his rocker. If churches want tax exempt status, they better be a church and not just a hate group pretending to be one.Again, not the point.

Accountable;1347851 wrote: Now, they very well might be well-meaning people who think it necessary to scare people into action, but to lie and spin only weakens a message, especially when simple truth is strong enough condemnation.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Fri Dec 24, 2010 12:17 pm

Accountable;1348011 wrote: Did you really miss the point?I got his point, though I stopped watching about 2/3's of the way through. He lacks credibility, plus he's a paranoid conspiracy theorist.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Dec 24, 2010 12:43 pm

Ahso!;1348119 wrote: I got his point, .
Not HIS point! MY point!! Didn't it even occur to you that what he was talking about was off the topic??

I give up. :yh_doh

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Fri Dec 24, 2010 12:56 pm

Now stop that, if you think I'm not getting something, spell it out for me, if your right, I'll admit it, if not I'll tell you that, too.

You know, there are times when you do the same thing, IMO, but I don't get all pissy about it.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Dec 24, 2010 1:16 pm

Ahso!;1348121 wrote: Now stop that, if you think I'm not getting something, spell it out for me, if your right, I'll admit it, if not I'll tell you that, too.

You know, there are times when you do the same thing, IMO, but I don't get all pissy about it. Third time's the charm?

Accountable;1347851 wrote: Now, they very well might be well-meaning people who think it necessary to scare people into action, but to lie and spin only weakens a message, especially when simple truth is strong enough condemnation.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Fri Dec 24, 2010 1:46 pm

Accountable;1348122 wrote: Third time's the charm?I got that the first time, I guess I forgot to comment on it. I agree, but you have to fight fire with fire. That's merchandising and the adversarial process playing out. I don't like it, I'd prefer honest, mature and up front dialogue, but that's not the way our system is working.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Dec 24, 2010 3:29 pm

Ahso!;1348123 wrote: I got that the first time, I guess I forgot to comment on it. I agree, but you have to fight fire with fire. That's merchandising and the adversarial process playing out. I don't like it, I'd prefer honest, mature and up front dialogue, but that's not the way our system is working.
Fire's more fun, that's for sure, but treating people as adversaries is not the way to get communication across.

I freely admit that I enjoy getting caught up in fire fights as much as anybody. I guess I'm just feeling the Christmas spirit. :-6 I think that sometimes we need to make the effort to remember that nobody here is really uncaring, cruel, or necessarily stupid. We simply disagree.

Scrat · Post by **Scrat** » Sat Dec 25, 2010 3:48 pm

The 9/11 First Responders ought to be taken care of. We owe them at least that much. But it wasn't just this minority group of repubs that ****ed this up. This is a bi-partisan effort spanning almost a decade.

Please tell me, just why in the hell do we owe them anything above and beyond what any other fireman or policemen anywhere else gets? They all put their lives in danger, they're all expected to do it, it's part of the job description. I don't think we need to make a privileged class at tax payers expense over this.

That small group of repugnicans are spot on, it's a waste. For gods sake, my state just cut back the funding for schools and child health care. If we're going to spend 7 billion plus on this we're truly messed up.

Screw those guys, they did their DUTY!! It's stupid to get a patriotic hardon over this. We have bigger fish to fry.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Dec 25, 2010 4:17 pm

Scrat;1348164 wrote: Please tell me, just why in the hell do we owe them anything above and beyond what any other fireman or policemen anywhere else gets? Any other firemen or policemen That goes into a situation such as that deserves to be taken care of as well. The bill, as I understand it, is to pay their medical problems resulting from the incident. I see no problem in doing as much for any such hero.