9/11 First responders Bill

[boyst]

No, you're a lemming because you can't articulate WHY you think this is a good bill. And of course we should say 'screw it' to this and every other bill if it is too expensive. Cost is always a deterimining factor unless you are a complete retard.

Example: the city of New Orleans.

No matter how far below sea level it is, how much of a sheet hole it is, we need to keep sinking money in it. If we don't we're racist.

Edited December 22, 2010 by jboyst62

[KD in CA]

Example: the city of New Orleans.

No matter how far below sea level it is, how much of a sheet hole it is, we need to keep sinking money in it. If we don't we're racist.

 

Apparently pLemming would be in full agreement if we passed a bill paying for gold teeth for every resident of New Orleans as long as someone named the bill the "Keeping Our Promise: The Katrina Survivors Bill".

 

[pBills]

Apparently pLemming would be in full agreement if we passed a bill paying for gold teeth for every resident of New Orleans as long as someone named the bill the "Keeping Our Promise: The Katrina Survivors Bill".

 

 

 

Not true dumb ass. pLemming... you are such a witty one. I believed that this bill should cover those first responders, the volunteers/workers who helped clean up at Ground Zero as well as the residents affected. Simple proof of residency should cover your worries of people scamming.

 

Now go on and enjoy the holidays.

 

Cost is always a deterimining factor unless you are a complete retard.

 

 

Oh and of course cost plays into anything that comes out of Washington these days. Or at least it should. However, I wouldn't want the bill to be blocked because some people didn't want a tax loophole for multinational corporations to be closed.

[Magox]

Not true dumb ass. pLemming... you are such a witty one. I believed that this bill should cover those first responders, the volunteers/workers who helped clean up at Ground Zero as well as the residents affected. Simple proof of residency should cover your worries of people scamming.

 

Now go on and enjoy the holidays.

Just admit it. YOu didn't read through the details, all you did was repeat the bogeyman talking points, which was "Look at Coburn, he's just blocking the bill, what a heartless obstructionist bastard" (of course I'm paraphrasing, but you damn well that was what you were suggesting).

 

Admittedly, initially I didn't review the bill, but after looking through the details and statements from both sides, within a few minutes I saw what the real hold up was. YOu on the other hand, didn't. You never made mention of the CBO's concerns over the proposal. You never made mention of COburn's objections. All you did was parrot the talking points.

 

Now, as a result of Coburn's actions, the bill is a better one. It reduces the cost, it helps eliminate waste and demands accountability and efficiency. Even Schumer commended Coburns intentions.

 

What I will tell you next, is with the best intentions possible and I mean this sincerely. Before you repeat or state an opinion about something, research it first. Look at it, don't just go by what you heard or what you read in an article. Look at both sides arguments, and if possible look at an arbitrary one as well.

 

When this topic finally peaked my interest enough to actually look into it. I read the Lib's attacks, I read Coburn's defense and I read the CBO's score. That is how everyone in my view should look at things before they state their opinion regarding a topic. If you don't, you leave yourself open to criticism.

 

Once again, Dan was a perfect example. He was under the same belief you were to a certain degree, after I presented him the argument from the other side and the CBO's scoring, he saw that there actually was a substantive argument to be made.

 

I will tell you this, Coburn does things that not only pisses off Libs, but he also does things that pisses off the mindless "conservatives" as well. The guy is a true conservative, and he should be commended for his bold stance on this topic. He knew that he was going to come under pressure, simply because it is deeply unpopular to go against the headline of "Coburn blocks benefits for 9/11 responders".

 

How can that be a popular move? He did it not because he didn't believe 9/11 responders don't deserve benefits, he did it because he was concerned with the cost, the efficiency, the logistics, the CBO's concerns, the potential waste and accountability.

 

As a result of his bold move, the bill becomes a better bill, and for making this a better bill, he payed a political price.

 

That is what you call courage.

 

Oh and of course cost plays into anything that comes out of Washington these days. Or at least it should. However, I wouldn't want the bill to be blocked because some people didn't want a tax loophole for multinational corporations to be closed.

Once again, this proves that you don't fully understand what the hold up was. If you did, you wouldn't of made this comment. Try researching first.

Edited December 23, 2010 by Magox

[pBills]

Just admit it. YOu didn't read through the details, all you did was repeat the bogeyman talking points, which was "Look at Coburn, he's just blocking the bill, what a heartless obstructionist bastard" (of course I'm paraphrasing, but you damn well that was what you were suggesting).

 

Admittedly, initially I didn't review the bill, but after looking through the details and statements from both sides, within a few minutes I saw what the real hold up was. YOu on the other hand, didn't. You never made mention of the CBO's concerns over the proposal. You never made mention of COburn's objections. All you did was parrot the talking points.

 

Now, as a result of Coburn's actions, the bill is a better one. It reduces the cost, it helps eliminate waste and demands accountability and efficiency. Even Schumer commended Coburns intentions.

 

What I will tell you next, is with the best intentions possible and I mean this sincerely. Before you repeat or state an opinion about something, research it first. Look at it, don't just go by what you heard or what you read in an article. Look at both sides arguments, and if possible look at an arbitrary one as well.

 

When this topic finally peaked my interest enough to actually look into it. I read the Lib's attacks, I read Coburn's defense and I read the CBO's score. That is how everyone in my view should look at things before they state their opinion regarding a topic. If you don't, you leave yourself open to criticism.

 

Once again, Dan was a perfect example. He was under the same belief you were to a certain degree, after I presented him the argument from the other side and the CBO's scoring, he saw that there actually was a substantive argument to be made.

 

I will tell you this, Coburn does things that not only pisses off Libs, but he also does things that pisses off the mindless "conservatives" as well. The guy is a true conservative, and he should be commended for his bold stance on this topic. He knew that he was going to come under pressure, simply because it is deeply unpopular to go against the headline of "Coburn blocks benefits for 9/11 responders".

 

How can that be a popular move? He did it not because he didn't believe 9/11 responders don't deserve benefits, he did it because he was concerned with the cost, the efficiency, the logistics, the CBO's concerns, the potential waste and accountability.

 

As a result of his bold move, the bill becomes a better bill, and for making this a better bill, he payed a political price.

 

That is what you call courage.

 

 

Hey the bill came down in price. That is a good thing. I am very happy for that. However Mr. Courage paid a political price because of the way he presented his beliefs. Simple as that. Mr. Doctor should have been smarter.

[Magox]

Hey the bill came down in price. That is a good thing. I am very happy for that. However Mr. Courage paid a political price because of the way he presented his beliefs. Simple as that. Mr. Doctor should have been smarter.

It wasn't just that, it also demanded accountability and helped to eliminate waste.

 

If you were truly "very happy" that the bill is a better one, you should also be thankful to COburn, if you truly are "very happy" and that you think it is "a good thing".

 

If he hadn't of done this, the bill would of been worse. That is a fact.

[pBills]

It wasn't just that, it also demanded accountability and helped to eliminate waste.

 

If you were truly "very happy" that the bill is a better one, you should also be thankful to COburn, if you truly are "very happy" and that you think it is "a good thing".

 

If he hadn't of done this, the bill would of been worse. That is a fact.

 

 

He could have presented his concerns better instead of throwing down the gauntlet and stating he will NEVER allow it to go through. You say he was paying a political price... I believe he was doing the right thing, the wrong way, meanwhile playing up to his conservative base.

[GG]

Not true dumb ass. pLemming... you are such a witty one. I believed that this bill should cover those first responders, the volunteers/workers who helped clean up at Ground Zero as well as the residents affected. Simple proof of residency should cover your worries of people scamming.

 

Anyone else? The cloud wafted over Brooklyn, then made its way past Queens on the way to Long Island. What about the poor Staten Island residents who had to deal with the WTC debris carted to the landfill there?

 

Simple proof of residency of what? Once people were evacuated, NOBODY was allowed back into the area for a week, when most of the toxic air was gone.

 

The ONLY people who should be covered are the ones who were onsite for the clean up during the first week.

[Magox]

He could have presented his concerns better instead of throwing down the gauntlet and stating he will NEVER allow it to go through. You say he was paying a political price... I believe he was doing the right thing, the wrong way, meanwhile playing up to his conservative base.

Thats not true. He was criticized by Huckabee, Giulliani and King. The bill was passed yesterday, if he hadn't of made the strong threat, the bill would of passed yesterday as well, except one little thing, it would of been a bill that was worse. Since all the Senators effective today have begun their Christmas vacations, this was the ONLY way the bill could of been made better, which was by threatening to block the bill.

 

Without the threat, the bill comes up for a vote, in the previously more flawed form.

 

I'm sorry, you're wrong

Edited December 23, 2010 by Magox

[pBills]

Thats not true. He was criticized by Huckabee, Giulliani and King. The bill was passed yesterday, if he hadn't of made the strong threat, the bill would of passed yesterday as well, except one little thing, it would of been a bill that was worse. Since all the Senators effective today have begun their Christmas vacations, this was the ONLY way the bill could of been made better, which was by threatening to block the bill.

 

Without the threat, the bill comes up for a vote, in the previously more flawed form.

 

I'm sorry, you're wrong

 

 

As usual, agree to disagree.

[KD in CA]

Not true dumb ass. pLemming... you are such a witty one. I believed that this bill should cover those first responders, the volunteers/workers who helped clean up at Ground Zero as well as the residents affected. Simple proof of residency should cover your worries of people scamming.

First, what does "cover" mean? Free healthcare for life for anything, regardless of reason? Are you going to assume that a 2 pack a day smoker got that lung cancer because he spent 30 minutes near Ground Zero? How much of that $7.4B is going to pay for gov't administration and oversight of the fund?

 

Second, Proof of residency?? So now every resident of lower Manhattan is 'covered'? I thought we were talking about 'first responders', the vast majority of who didn't live anywhere near the WTC. And what about those of us who worked in the neighborhood? Do GG and I get free healthcare for life too?

 

However, I wouldn't want the bill to be blocked because some people didn't want a tax loophole for multinational corporations to be closed.

And apparently you wouldn't want the bill to be blocked no matter how much it costs. Once again, I'll ask the question. How many people are "covered" by $7.4 billion? The reason for blocking the bill shouldn't have anything to do with tax 'loopholes' (which GG already debunked above), but it should have to do with whether $7.4B is a reasonable amount of money to spend for this purpose.

 

 

And a Merry Christmas to you too.

Edited December 23, 2010 by KD in CT

[Magox]

As usual, agree to disagree.

Sorry not good enough. Specifically which part of my statement do you disagree with? Specifics

 

First, what does "cover" mean? Free healthcare for life for anything, regardless of reason? Are you going to assume that a 2 pack a day smoker got that lung cancer because he spent 30 minutes near Ground Zero? How much of that $7.4B is going to pay for gov't administration and oversight of the fund?

 

Second, Proof of residency?? So now every resident of lower Manhattan is 'covered'? I thought we were talking about 'first responders', the vast majority of who didn't live anywhere near the WTC. And what about those of us who worked in the neighborhood? Do GG and I get free healthcare for life too?

 

 

And apparently you wouldn't want the bill to be blocked no matter how much it costs. Once again, I'll ask the question. How many people are "covered" by $7.4 billion? The reason for blocking the bill shouldn't have anything to do with tax 'loopholes' (which GG already debunked above), but it should have to do with whether $7.4B is a reasonable amount of money to spend for this purpose.

 

 

And a Merry Christmas to you too.

That is way to detailed for him to effectively respond.

[IDBillzFan]

Anyone else? The cloud wafted over Brooklyn, then made its way past Queens on the way to Long Island. What about the poor Staten Island residents who had to deal with the WTC debris carted to the landfill there?

 

Simple proof of residency of what? Once people were evacuated, NOBODY was allowed back into the area for a week, when most of the toxic air was gone.

 

The ONLY people who should be covered are the ones who were onsite for the clean up during the first week.

We met some people last week who lived near Grownd Zero, and interestingly enough, I've had something of a nagging cough. You may laugh, but Second-Hand 9/11 Herovascular Syndrome is real my friend.

 

So in review, I got me a new imported car through Cash For Clunkers, $8000 for buying a house, a federal waiver from having to carry health insurance like the rest of the world, $50,000 because I know a black farmer, and now I stand to get about a quarter million because I had drinks with a guy from NYC.

 

I'm really starting to warm up to this administration.

[Gene Frenkle]

We met some people last week who lived near Grownd Zero, and interestingly enough, I've had something of a nagging cough. You may laugh, but Second-Hand 9/11 Herovascular Syndrome is real my friend.

 

So in review, I got me a new imported car through Cash For Clunkers, $8000 for buying a house, a federal waiver from having to carry health insurance like the rest of the world, $50,000 because I know a black farmer, and now I stand to get about a quarter million because I had drinks with a guy from NYC.

 

I'm really starting to warm up to this administration.

Congrats on hitting all the talking points as usual. Funnier than usual too!

[Nanker]

Money be damned.

I say, cover everybody who even watched the thing on TV or saw the reruns on CNN.

Give unlimited "healthcare" coverage for everyone in America.

Hell, why stop there? For everyone, everywhere, even in the ozone where the free radicals play.

[DC Tom]

Money be damned.

I say, cover everybody who even watched the thing on TV or saw the reruns on CNN.

 

Why not? I - and more than a few people I know - suffered major clinical depression that can be directly attributed to being influenced by 9/11. Hell, Dan Rather and Peter Jennings had near-breakdowns shortly afterwards as a result of their near-constant on-air coverage of 9/11 for three straight days...why the hell isn't Rather covered under this?

[Booster4324]

Thats not true. He was criticized by Huckabee, Giulliani and King. The bill was passed yesterday, if he hadn't of made the strong threat, the bill would of passed yesterday as well, except one little thing, it would of been a bill that was worse. Since all the Senators effective today have begun their Christmas vacations, this was the ONLY way the bill could of been made better, which was by threatening to block the bill.

 

Without the threat, the bill comes up for a vote, in the previously more flawed form.

 

I'm sorry, you're wrong

 

You have been so patient with Pbills. I am super impressed, as I would have called him a !@#$ing idiot and been done with it.

[Magox]

You have been so patient with Pbills. I am super impressed, as I would have called him a !@#$ing idiot and been done with it.

I don't know, I just keep getting sucked in!

[Dan]

Anyone else? The cloud wafted over Brooklyn, then made its way past Queens on the way to Long Island. What about the poor Staten Island residents who had to deal with the WTC debris carted to the landfill there?

 

Simple proof of residency of what? Once people were evacuated, NOBODY was allowed back into the area for a week, when most of the toxic air was gone.

 

The ONLY people who should be covered are the ones who were onsite for the clean up during the first week.

I do understand the point you're making; however, a few points of background information:

 

I assisted (and selected many of the sites) the EPA to monitor air quality at ground zero and in multiple other locations - some on the pile, some blocks away, some many, many blocks away, and at sites throughout the area (NYC/Jersey). I don't recall the exact data each day (we had daily briefings on air quality), of course, but within a week or so the air quality was vastly improved. However, the air quality on the pile was consistently poor. So, for individuals working in battery park, Staten Island, etc. (for example) there was little danger. However, for the rescuers and eventual construction crews on (and under) the pile the air quality was quite toxic. Hence I'd doubt anyone from Brooklyn or Long Island had much worry.

 

Staten Island is a valid concern. However, we had a very strict policy of washing down all debris leaving the pile. This was set up within about 1.5 weeks. All truckloads of material were required to stop at one of 3 check points and literally hosed down with firehouses in an effort to diminish the dust leaving the site. Not, that there wasn't dust on Staten Island. But, SI was where the debris was actually sorted and sifted for evidence and eventually remains. Hence, it was a highly restricted place - even more so than ground zero. Mostly just CIA, FBI, NYPD (and perhaps a few other initials that we don't discuss) were allowed access, along with a few others (such as yours truly) from time to time. PPE there was mandatory and absolutely enforced. So, again, I'd expect there to be little concern with health problems in those individuals working on SI. Furthermore, the drop off and transit points on SI were directed in the dump, so the debris didn't travel on any public roads once it left the pile.

 

Actually, I'd be worried about the debris that was trucked off prior to setting up SI as the dump site. There were 3 dumps, I believe 1 each in Brooklyn, the Bronx and Jersey. Although I was dealing with other problems in that first week, so don't hold me to those locations. Most of that debris was not washed down either.

 

The concern about individuals living in (and I'd assume working in) lower Manhattan may not be so much about when they came back, but would be for that first day. We've all seen the images of people completely covered in dust walking away from lower Manhattan. They may have gotten out alive, but that doesn't necessarily mean they're able to live normal, healthy lives. But what most people don't realize, prior to opening up areas of lower Manhattan for people to come back; Fire and Sanitation would hose down and clean all the streets and buildings to remove the dust and debris. However, the residents and store owners would have to clean up the interiors. And there wasn't a square inch of lower Manhattan, inside or outside, that wasn't covered by an inch or more of dust/debris. I inspected many buildings and can attest to that. So, although outdoor air quality may have been fine; I'm certain indoor air quality was less than optimal. So, again, these people may have gotten out alive, but they came back to a house or business that was filled with debris.

 

So, yes, perhaps just the first responders working the pile get all the attention. But, there's no doubt every resident and visitor in lower Manhattan on that morning suffered and quite possibly have long term health affects. Is it good to help all of them with their medical bills? I don't know the answer. But, I have no problem with trying. Again, will there be individuals trying to abuse this and gain unfairly from it - yes. But that, IMO, doesn't mean we shouldn't try to help the many, many people that have legitimate problems and need assistance.

[GG]

I do understand the point you're making; however, a few points of background information:

 

....

 

So, yes, perhaps just the first responders working the pile get all the attention. But, there's no doubt every resident and visitor in lower Manhattan on that morning suffered and quite possibly have long term health affects. Is it good to help all of them with their medical bills? I don't know the answer. But, I have no problem with trying. Again, will there be individuals trying to abuse this and gain unfairly from it - yes. But that, IMO, doesn't mean we shouldn't try to help the many, many people that have legitimate problems and need assistance.

 

To some extent your post is a very strong argument against the compensation fund. To hear the critics tell it, it's as if people were just thrown into the steaming toxic cauldron without any precaution taken by the officials. But for anyone who was actually on site knows that that wasn't the case.

 

As for long lasting effects, nobody knows what they are at this time. But if you believe in the theory that real effects manifest themselves from anecdotal evidence, I can tell you that in the 9+ years since I've worked in the immediate area of the hole, knowing the hundreds of people who were among those running for their lives including a 5-month pregnant woman, me being back at work on the first day that civilians were allowed back downtown - I do not know of a single person who has exhibited any respiratory or other ailments that can be attributed to the attack. I'm not saying that everyone is in the clear, but you would figure if there was evidence, you would definitely see some kind of a pattern among downtown workers & residents emerge within 9 years to start questioning the environment of the area during and after the collapse.

 

But I am fairly certain that once the fund is available, then symptoms will miraculously appear for the general population.