9/11 First responders Bill

[Magox]

After reviewing the proposals, I have concluded that some of you responding to this thread are a bunch of idiots.

 

It's apparent from anyone who is able to see things as they are, that this is simply a funding and accountability issue. One side wants to increase fees and close tax loopholes the other side wants to cut spending to pay for it. If the Conservatives were in power of the Senate, they would push for this bill as well, except that they would propose spending cuts, and of course the other side would do exactly what the GOP is doing, which is delaying it in order to get leverage for negotiations.

 

But considering that this board is filled with lemmings who aren't able to see things as they are, they just listen to the pundits of their choosing and take it as gospel.

 

No one is against this:

 

Title I of H.R. 847 creates a mandatory World Trade Center Health Program (WTC program) within the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). The WTC program will provide: (1) medical monitoring and treatment benefits to eligible emergency responders and recovery and cleanup workers who responded to the World Trade Center terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, and (2) initial health evaluation, monitoring, and treatment benefits to residents and other building occupants and area workers who were directly impacted and adversely affected by such attacks.

 

Only the mindless idiots believe that people are against any of the above. That is what the spin doctors feed to their victims.

 

The problem is with the following:

 

 

 

 

CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 847 would increase spending by $7.4 billion over the 2011-2020 period and raise taxes $7.4 billion dollars. In addition, the VCF will remain open and active outside this ten-year window, and H.R. 847 dedicates $4.2 billion for the VCF beyond 2020. So, in reality H.R. 847 spends $11.6 billion over the course of these programs.

 

 

The pay-for developed by the Majority did not generate enough revenue to pay for the program for ten years. Under the bill that will be on the floor there will be a set amount of funding for FY2011 through FY2019. In FY2018, the amount provided for the 9-11 health program is $601 million. In FY2019, the set amount drops to $173 million. In FY2020, the supposed last year of the 10-year program, there is no funding. The only way the program will be fully funded in FY2019 or funded at all in FY2020 is if the spending in FY2011 through FY2018 does not reach the levels the authors and CBO estimated would be spent. The supporters of the bill claim mandatory spending is necessary to ensure full funding of the program but the majority’s new bill fails this test and uses a budget gimmick to hide the true cost of the bill.

 

 

 

Under current law, certain payments (principally dividends, interest, and royalties) made by US-based entities to a parent company based overseas are subject to a 30 percent withholding tax. That requirement customarily is reduced or eliminated when the payment is made to a country with which the US has a tax treaty. Companies with parents based in tax haven countries are able to effectively bypass the withholding tax by routing payments through an affiliate in a tax treaty country, which then transfers the funds to the parent company. The provision would limit this practice by retaining the withholding tax on certain deductible payments (principally interest and royalties) to a foreign-based affiliate unless the tax would be reduced under a treaty if the payment were made directly to the company’s parent corporation.

 

So again, and this is for the idiots of the board. The disagreement isn't regarding the entitlement, it's in the funding and in the accountability of the efficiency of how it's spent. One side wants to create taxes, and according to the CBO uses accounting "budget gimmicks" (shocking) the other side wants to pay for it with spending cuts. The rational approach would be a mix of the two.

 

Now how is it that only after a few minutes I was able to get to the bottom of the hold up, yet the lemmings never made mention of it? Oh I know, they are lemmings.

[Dan]

 

 

So again, and this is for the idiots of the board. The disagreement isn't regarding the entitlement, it's in the funding and in the accountability of the efficiency of how it's spent. One side wants to create taxes, and according to the CBO uses accounting "budget gimmicks" (shocking) the other side wants to pay for it with spending cuts. The rational approach would be a mix of the two.

 

I could agree with that. However, why don't the two sides sit down and work out a proper mechanism of funding the bill? I should also point out that this bill isn't being funded by creating taxes; it's primary mechanism of funding is making corporations pay their current taxes. OK, so there's a shortfall of funding in the later years of the bill; why not sit down together and figure a way to cut spending or close other loopholes to make up the difference?

 

If anything, this bill and its"debate" over the last two years is a prime example of what's wrong with this country and our current political climate. Compromise and rational thought seem to be outside the boundaries of consideration. Even in a simple discussion, here, I get called an idiot for attempting to add some factual context to the discussion. (thanks, btw) Yes, everyone wants to take care of first responders, but no one wants to do anything about it - one side doesn't want to consider cutting waste from elsewhere; the other side doesn't want to take money away from corporate donors. So, in the end... nothing gets done and the country and its citizens are worse off. Meanwhile the politicians remain.

[DC Tom]

From a cost summary:

"Under current law, certain payments (principally dividends, interest, and royalties) made by US-based entities to a parent company based overseas are subject to a 30 percent withholding tax. That requirement customarily is reduced or eliminated when the payment is made to a country with which the US has a tax treaty. Companies with parents based in tax haven countries are able to effectively bypass the withholding tax by routing payments through an affiliate in a tax treaty country, which then transfers the funds to the parent company. The provision would limit this practice by retaining the withholding tax on certain deductible payments (principally interest and royalties) to a foreign-based affiliate unless the tax would be reduced under a treaty if the payment were made directly to the company’s parent corporation." full text

 

What am I missing?

 

I certainly didn't see that in the text of the bill itself. I'll look again...perchance the summary and current incarnation of the bill are out of sync.

 

"The WTC program (as created by the bill) will provide: (1) medical monitoring and treatment benefits to eligible emergency responders and recovery and cleanup workers who responded to the World Trade Center terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, and (2) initial health evaluation, monitoring, and treatment benefits to residents and other building occupants and area workers who were directly impacted and adversely affected by such attacks." (again, from the summary)

 

I don't know much about the guy building the Ground Zero Mosque, but I'd assume he can prove that he was directly and adversely impacted by the attack (as defined in the bill). If so, yes, he should be eligible for coverage.

 

The guy building the Ground Zero Mosque applied for a grant from the LMDC, which, if granted, makes him eligible for coverage.

[Magox]

I could agree with that. However, why don't the two sides sit down and work out a proper mechanism of funding the bill? I should also point out that this bill isn't being funded by creating taxes; it's primary mechanism of funding is making corporations pay their current taxes. OK, so there's a shortfall of funding in the later years of the bill; why not sit down together and figure a way to cut spending or close other loopholes to make up the difference?

 

If anything, this bill and its"debate" over the last two years is a prime example of what's wrong with this country and our current political climate. Compromise and rational thought seem to be outside the boundaries of consideration. Even in a simple discussion, here, I get called an idiot for attempting to add some factual context to the discussion. (thanks, btw) Yes, everyone wants to take care of first responders, but no one wants to do anything about it - one side doesn't want to consider cutting waste from elsewhere; the other side doesn't want to take money away from corporate donors. So, in the end... nothing gets done and the country and its citizens are worse off. Meanwhile the politicians remain.

I'm sorry, did I specifically call you an idiot? To my recollection I said "some" of you, some meaning more than one and considering that Conner and Pbills are involved in this thread, well....

 

In regards to not being "funded by creating taxes", that is certainly debatable, and if you read up above, according to the CBO, they would argue otherwise. Either way, whether you want to call it taxes or not doesn't matter, what isn't in dispute is that it is a mechanism to generate revenues through collections and by definition that can certainly be effectively debated as a tax.

 

And in regards to both sides not sitting down to get this resolved, yup, that's how things unfortunately work. The atmosphere is poisonous and more polarized than I have ever seen in my life. To my understanding Dan, this hasn't even gone through the Senate committe's yet. In other words, they just put together a bill in October, hasn't been properly vetteand are attempting to jam through this bill. Then of course if the GOP doesn't accept and lie down and accept the bill as is, then the opposing side paints them as a bunch of blocking uncompassionate mother!@#$ers who only care about the Chamber of Commerce.

 

And you know what Dan? This strategy works, because it plays on the sympathies of the uninformed lemmings, specially in a hot and sensitive topic as helping the 9/11 police officers and firemen.

[....lybob]

Need to cut a program to pay for this? how about cutting some foreign aid to Egypt and Israel those two Welfare Queens have been on the dole for close to 40 years.

[Dan]

I certainly didn't see that in the text of the bill itself. I'll look again...perchance the summary and current incarnation of the bill are out of sync.

 

The guy building the Ground Zero Mosque applied for a grant from the LMDC, which, if granted, makes him eligible for coverage.

The Bill has certainly gone through some revision, I'm sure it'll go through more.

 

Then, yep, he'd be eligible. But, if he was in lower Manhattan after the attack; I have no problem with him being eligible. Just like I have no problem with all the other 10's of thousands of people that would also be eligible for coverage.

 

I'm sorry, did I specifically call you an idiot? To my recollection I said "some" of you, some meaning more than one and considering that Conner and Pbills are involved in this thread, well....

 

In regards to not being "funded by creating taxes", that is certainly debatable, and if you read up above, according to the CBO, they would argue otherwise. Either way, whether you want to call it taxes or not doesn't matter, what isn't in dispute is that it is a mechanism to generate revenues through collections and by definition that can certainly be effectively debated as a tax.

 

And in regards to both sides not sitting down to get this resolved, yup, that's how things unfortunately work. The atmosphere is poisonous and more polarized than I have ever seen in my life. To my understanding Dan, this hasn't even gone through the Senate committe's yet. In other words, they just put together a bill in October, hasn't been properly vetteand are attempting to jam through this bill. Then of course if the GOP doesn't accept and lie down and accept the bill as is, then the opposing side paints them as a bunch of blocking uncompassionate mother!@#$ers who only care about the Chamber of Commerce.

 

And you know what Dan? This strategy works, because it plays on the sympathies of the uninformed lemmings, specially in a hot and sensitive topic as helping the 9/11 police officers and firemen.

This bill was first introduced in Feb. 2009. So, it's hardly being jammed through. Granted, I'm not sure of it's entire history; so there could have been significant revision since it's initial introduction (and I'm about to have to do some work so I can't look it up). I would agree, though, the atmosphere in Washington and politics is more polarized than I've ever seen as well. I'm not sure how we ever come back from the hard line stances and rhetoric for the sake of playing on sympathies. Perhaps we can't.

 

I was hopeful more incumbents would have been voted out. That's the only way I can see a true change in the atmosphere. Although I'll admit, I'm not sure many of the individuals running on the "vote the incumbents out" rhetoric would have really done anything to depolarize Washington. I've said it before and I'll continue to say it.. until we see term limits for all; we're unlikely to see any real change.

[Magox]

This bill was first introduced in Feb. 2009. So, it's hardly being jammed through.

Yes it was introduced in 2009, but their plate has been full the entire time. Look how long the Health Insurance debate bill was at the forefront of their minds. What is a fact Dan, is that this hasn't even reached any of the committee's for debate, don't you think that it at least deserves to go through that process first?

 

Politically speaking, the conservatives that are blocking this bill lose. Simply because as I stated, it is deeply unpopular to be the one's blocking the bill, no matter what rationale or logic is being applied.

Edited December 21, 2010 by Magox

[IDBillzFan]

I don't know enough about this bill to have an informed opinion, lemming.

One of the things I genuinely admire about the left is their incredible ability to take complex issues and label them such that absolutely, positively no one should be against them.

 

How the hell do you even THINK about arguing about anything that is titled 9/11 First Reponders (Fill in the Blank)? If you don't support this bill, you must hate firemen...police officers...emergency medical technicians. Why do you hate these people?

 

I'm still reading up on the Pigford case, but that has "You must hate black farmers" written all over it.

 

Seriously...ya gotta give the left props for hawking their wares so well.

[DC Tom]

One of the things I genuinely admire about the left is their incredible ability to take complex issues and label them such that absolutely, positively no one should be against them.

 

How the hell do you even THINK about arguing about anything that is titled 9/11 First Reponders (Fill in the Blank)? If you don't support this bill, you must hate firemen...police officers...emergency medical technicians. Why do you hate these people?

 

I'm still reading up on the Pigford case, but that has "You must hate black farmers" written all over it.

 

Seriously...ya gotta give the left props for hawking their wares so well.

 

Not just the left. You've got to love the USA PATRIOT Act just as much.

 

And aren't there already worker's comp and disability policies to cover this for "first responders"?

[IDBillzFan]

Not just the left. You've got to love the USA PATRIOT Act just as much.

 

And aren't there already worker's comp and disability policies to cover this for "first responders"?

No doubt. I just think the left is so much better at it.

 

My understanding is that there has been a crapload of dough already in place for first responders, but I caught an interesting take from Krauthammer on this bill getting pushed through without full vetting: He suggested fthat if you're going to fund care for health issues directly related to responding to 9/11, shouldn't there be a hearing to specifically determine what environmental issues caused what health issues? His argument was essentially "Look, if you want to just give them money, fine. But if you want to specifically give them money for health issues directly related to the site, there should be detailed reports specifying links between between the two."

 

But you can't do that because then you hate firemen.

[Adam]

Its got nothing to do with "heart or spine." The Zadroga Bill....just like the tax cut bill...just like the appropriations bill....just like the DREAM ACT vote....just like the DADT vote.......just like the vote on the START treaty...were all delayed and pushed back to after the Election and to the very, very end of the congressional session just so that the Democrats currently running the show can cry "victim" and point to the "big bad Republicans" who "are saying NO!!! becuase they dont care about innocent poor people, 9/11 first responders, inncoent immigrant children, the gays, the poor cute animals, and Santa Claus."

 

Its a classic demonization tactic. Politics 101. And essentially they are playing you like a fiddle and youre falling for it.

 

The fact is, if it goes to the next session, the bill (or something very similar) will pass before the weather warms. its been almost ten years since 9/11. I dont think another month or two just to make sure all the 'i's are dotted and 't's crossed in this very crititcal bill is going to make a difference.

 

If it doesnt pass by March, you can call me out on it.

Gotta agree with you. Greatest place on earth

[boyst]

Perhaps I am the most uninformed person around here, it certainly wouldn't surprise me. But I do know that when I was watching the coverage that there was dust and smoke every where. I saw that many of these workers had their masks around their necks and not over their face. I do not know how much these brave men and women got from their insurance providers already but by this point it just seems like a huge dog and pony show that will line the pockets of all the wrong people. We've probably all had a job or been in an enviroment where you have to wear PPE (steel toe boots, ear plugs, safety glasses). If you chose to not wear your steel toe boots working in a steel factory and something falls on your feet and crushes your toes you only got what was coming to you.

 

My concern falls not on these men and women who rushed to the scene but that they ditched their safety equipment, they chose not to wear it, they ignored the warnings set out by so many groups. Even if the EPA, CIA, FBI, DOJ, and KFC all said the air is safe anyone could look at the video or pictures and see that it did not appear to be a good idea. How could anyone have to wear a mask in a coal mine but not at the site of an explosion?! I am all about helping these hero's but I do not think it should be to the tune of billions of dollars when there were insurers to collect from. Life is a choice, as a firefighter or police officer there are chances you take at your job just like working in any position.

 

Also, it is amazing to see how many people mispell so many words here, especially DIEING! It is DYING!

[Adam]

Perhaps I am the most uninformed person around here, it certainly wouldn't surprise me. But I do know that when I was watching the coverage that there was dust and smoke every where. I saw that many of these workers had their masks around their necks and not over their face. I do not know how much these brave men and women got from their insurance providers already but by this point it just seems like a huge dog and pony show that will line the pockets of all the wrong people. We've probably all had a job or been in an enviroment where you have to wear PPE (steel toe boots, ear plugs, safety glasses). If you chose to not wear your steel toe boots working in a steel factory and something falls on your feet and crushes your toes you only got what was coming to you.

 

My concern falls not on these men and women who rushed to the scene but that they ditched their safety equipment, they chose not to wear it, they ignored the warnings set out by so many groups. Even if the EPA, CIA, FBI, DOJ, and KFC all said the air is safe anyone could look at the video or pictures and see that it did not appear to be a good idea. How could anyone have to wear a mask in a coal mine but not at the site of an explosion?! I am all about helping these hero's but I do not think it should be to the tune of billions of dollars when there were insurers to collect from. Life is a choice, as a firefighter or police officer there are chances you take at your job just like working in any position.

 

Also, it is amazing to see how many people mispell so many words here, especially DIEING! It is DYING!

While I am not completely knowledgeable about the subject, I think it would be difficult to work that site for hours on end with the safety equipment the whole time.

[Chef Jim]

While I am not completely knowledgeable about the subject, I think it would be difficult to work that site for hours on end with the safety equipment the whole time.

 

And do you really think any of them were forced to work there without safety equipment??

[....lybob]

Perhaps I am the most uninformed person around here, it certainly wouldn't surprise me. But I do know that when I was watching the coverage that there was dust and smoke every where. I saw that many of these workers had their masks around their necks and not over their face. I do not know how much these brave men and women got from their insurance providers already but by this point it just seems like a huge dog and pony show that will line the pockets of all the wrong people. We've probably all had a job or been in an enviroment where you have to wear PPE (steel toe boots, ear plugs, safety glasses). If you chose to not wear your steel toe boots working in a steel factory and something falls on your feet and crushes your toes you only got what was coming to you.

 

My concern falls not on these men and women who rushed to the scene but that they ditched their safety equipment, they chose not to wear it, they ignored the warnings set out by so many groups. Even if the EPA, CIA, FBI, DOJ, and KFC all said the air is safe anyone could look at the video or pictures and see that it did not appear to be a good idea. How could anyone have to wear a mask in a coal mine but not at the site of an explosion?! I am all about helping these hero's but I do not think it should be to the tune of billions of dollars when there were insurers to collect from. Life is a choice, as a firefighter or police officer there are chances you take at your job just like working in any position.

 

Also, it is amazing to see how many people mispell so many words here, especially DIEING! It is DYING!

I've done work in a couple different masks with filters- not easy at best and kinda torture if you are doing hard physical work- and it gets worse as your filter starts to clog up- with the type of dust in 9/11 you might have to get a new filter every half hour or so - otherwise it's like trying to suck air through a long thin straw- try doing that while going up and down a hill of rubble carrying a quarter beer keg to get a feel for it.

[Gene Frenkle]

And do you really think any of them were forced to work there without safety equipment??

I doubt many of them were too concerned with their own safety at the time, which is part of why I think these guys and girls actually live up to the word "hero".

[Adam]

I doubt many of them were too concerned with their own safety at the time, which is part of why I think these guys and girls actually live up to the word "hero".

+1. For me, I couldn't even stay at work after seeing what happened. I just went home and puked. The people who went to the site and helped must be incredibly strong people.

[Rob's House]

I haven't followed this story because it doesn't interest me, but the attention paid this thread has gotten me thinking:

 

Shouldn't fire fighters, cops, medics, etc. working in this be covered by the city? If the city decides otherwise shouldn't they sue the city?

 

Why are 9/11 victims and responders more worthy of help and sympathy than victims and responders involved in lesser disasters that weren't televised?

 

Who exactly are the people covered in this bill? Are we covering anyone and everyone who happened to live/work/be in the general vicinity of Ground Zero? What are the parameters?

 

These are thoughts that make me go hmmm...

[Gene Frenkle]

Why are 9/11 victims and responders more worthy of help and sympathy than victims and responders involved in lesser disasters that weren't televised?

I can't answer the rest of what you're asking, but it seems to me that 9/11 counts for more than other, "lesser" disasters. It simply does.

 

In this case, I think it's mostly about all the carcinogens that these people were breathing in (for days and days) as a result of these old buildings collapsing. Katrina, for example, was very bad, but there does not seem to be type of long-term threat associated with those who helped out with that. I can't think of anything else to really compare 9/11 to.

[boyst]

While I am not completely knowledgeable about the subject, I think it would be difficult to work that site for hours on end with the safety equipment the whole time.

&

I've done work in a couple different masks with filters- not easy at best and kinda torture if you are doing hard physical work- and it gets worse as your filter starts to clog up- with the type of dust in 9/11 you might have to get a new filter every half hour or so - otherwise it's like trying to suck air through a long thin straw- try doing that while going up and down a hill of rubble carrying a quarter beer keg to get a feel for it.

Well, I guess being hassled by the hard breathing and changing a filter every couple hours is worse then dying? Plus, I have read several accounts where a lot of these symptoms are like "Gulf War Syndrome." I believe it was DC Tom who pointed out in a similar thread a few months ago that any time you take thousands and thousands of people and put them together that half of them will have health issues regardless of what they were exposed to in the enviroment. I would like to see more data on just how many are actually sick, how many are suffering and how this issues relate directly to 9/11.

 

I doubt many of them were too concerned with their own safety at the time, which is part of why I think these guys and girls actually live up to the word "hero".

Anyone who risks their safety to assist another is a hero. Anyone who does so knowingly and willfully disregarding their safey when preventative devices are available is a fool.

 

I haven't followed this story because it doesn't interest me, but the attention paid this thread has gotten me thinking:

Shouldn't fire fighters, cops, medics, etc. working in this be covered by the city? If the city decides otherwise shouldn't they sue the city?

Why are 9/11 victims and responders more worthy of help and sympathy than victims and responders involved in lesser disasters that weren't televised?

Who exactly are the people covered in this bill? Are we covering anyone and everyone who happened to live/work/be in the general vicinity of Ground Zero? What are the parameters?

These are thoughts that make me go hmmm...

That is a question I think that must be answered. Instead you get people similar to those in this thread who think we must rush in there and help no matter what. Those are probably the same people who wanted to go full steam charging in to New Orleans when it flooded. When you move fast you make mistakes and costs go up ($10 bandaids, $200 toilet seats) and it just was silly. We should have let New Orleans handle their situation, let LA handle it; all those who stayed were fools and I feel no sympathy for those who chose to stay and wait for the storm to pass.

 

I can't answer the rest of what you're asking, but it seems to me that 9/11 counts for more than other, "lesser" disasters. It simply does.

 

In this case, I think it's mostly about all the carcinogens that these people were breathing in (for days and days) as a result of these old buildings collapsing. Katrina, for example, was very bad, but there does not seem to be type of long-term threat associated with those who helped out with that. I can't think of anything else to really compare 9/11 to.

There has been a lot of issues with Katrina and it is still going on, mostly under the radar. Lawsuits over exposure over to the waste water, etc. Plus, a lot national guard and troops were involved in that issue, it's a lot harder to get a scam past one of those Dr's.