Zadroga 9/11 First Responders Bill

#26
#26
Wait, you mean you think that opposition is justified because it will not just be first responders, but also residents or others who are shown to have been affected by exposure to toxins in the aftermath?

That's good policy right there, folks.

You realize, don't you, that the money is being used for medical treatment? They aren't getting a check, you idiots.
 
#29
#29
H.R. 847 does not reward hospitals and providers for improving health care. They will be reimbursed based on each service they perform
Click to expand...

think any tests/treatments will be unnecessary? Nah

H.R. 847 includes protections for trial lawyers, including the ability to receive taxpayer-funded compensation for work not directly related to recovery from the VCF. In addition, attorneys who have been compensation under another settlement will have access to settlement funds under the reopened VCF.
Click to expand...

that's all we need is a bunch of ambulance chasers looking to steal their cut of the gov't money
 
#30
#30
lawgator1 said:
You realize, don't you, that the money is being used for medical treatment? They aren't getting a check, you idiots.
Click to expand...

please show where anyone has claimed they will. If not then you can take your useless insults and....
 
#31
#31
utvolpj said:
please show where anyone has claimed they will. If not then you can take your useless insults and....
Click to expand...


The nature of your attacks on the bill suggest you thought it was a scam. I'm just not seeing that here.

You can argue that we can't afford it, and that's fine. I happen to think that is a bad political argument for the GOP and that it seems petty and is designed to disguise the real reason for opposition, which is that the GOP doesn't want Obama to have a victory of any sort.

But arguing that its trickeration or strategory for profit just seems kind of nuts-o, to me.
 
#32
#32
lawgator1 said:
The nature of your attacks on the bill suggest you thought it was a scam. I'm just not seeing that here.

You can argue that we can't afford it, and that's fine. I happen to think that is a bad political argument for the GOP and that it seems petty and is designed to disguise the real reason for opposition, which is that the GOP doesn't want Obama to have a victory of any sort.

But arguing that its trickeration or strategory for profit just seems kind of nuts-o, to me.
Click to expand...


If the Republicans didn't want Obama to have any victory then they wouldn't be helping pass the START treaty and DADT would not have been repealed.
 
#33
#33
volinbham said:
If the Republicans didn't want Obama to have any victory then they wouldn't be helping pass the START treaty and DADT would not have been repealed.
Click to expand...


Those raise different issues.

The repeal of DADT has been debated for years. It finally got enough cover from the military to get it done. START was supported by the moderates in the GOP and by those with a sense of foreign policy.

As to START, in particular, that is the Senate ratifying it and the Senate will still be in the hands of the Dems next year. Even with the added GOP presence there, they'd have had the votes to get it through.

Guarantee you that if the treaty had to go through the House the GOP would have stalled it long enough to take over and then they'd have hung it around Obama as a sign of weakness for 2012.

As is, they can oppose it in the Senate and lose, as they would anyway, and still use it later to try to attack Obama. They had no chance of winning. Allowing it to be ratified over their objection is the best they could do.
 
#34
#34
lawgator1 said:
The nature of your attacks on the bill suggest you thought it was a scam. I'm just not seeing that here. You can argue that we can't afford it, and that's fine.
Click to expand...

actually my first post on the subject was

because it's $7bil we don't have?
Click to expand...

lawgator1 said:
You can argue that we can't afford it, and that's fine. I happen to think that is a bad political argument for the GOP and that it seems petty and is designed to disguise the real reason for opposition, which is that the GOP doesn't want Obama to have a victory of any sort.

But arguing that its trickeration or strategory for profit just seems kind of nuts-o, to me.
Click to expand...

this will make it around $16bil we have spent on a small number of people for health reason. It's money we don't have and the Dems are trying to hide yet another entitlement program under a well thought out title. They're trying to make it unamerican to not want this bill and you've bought in completely. Forgive me for not taking everything they claim at face value
 
#35
#35
lawgator1 said:
Those raise different issues.

The repeal of DADT has been debated for years. It finally got enough cover from the military to get it done. START was supported by the moderates in the GOP and by those with a sense of foreign policy.
As to START, in particular, that is the Senate ratifying it and the Senate will still be in the hands of the Dems next year. Even with the added GOP presence there, they'd have had the votes to get it through.

Guarantee you that if the treaty had to go through the House the GOP would have stalled it long enough to take over and then they'd have hung it around Obama as a sign of weakness for 2012.

As is, they can oppose it in the Senate and lose, as they would anyway, and still use it later to try to attack Obama. They had no chance of winning. Allowing it to be ratified over their objection is the best they could do.
Click to expand...

who has the sense of foreign policy? Hussein doesn't, unless you consider blaming America for being a successful nation as good foreign policy.

I don't think they would have used it against him as a sign of weakness. The treaty itself shows how much of a weak president this guy is.
 
Last edited:
#37
#37
utvolpj said:
actually my first post on the subject was





this will make it around $16bil we have spent on a small number of people for health reason. It's money we don't have and the Dems are trying to hide yet another entitlement program under a well thought out title. They're trying to make it unamerican to not want this bill and you've bought in completely. Forgive me for not taking everything they claim at face value
Click to expand...

the dems make it sound so simple. if you're against it, you hate policemen and the 911 responders. no one is against helping them, but where do you draw the line? until is satisfies the union heads?
 
#38
#38
utvolpj said:
this will make it around $16bil we have spent on a small number of people for health reason. It's money we don't have and the Dems are trying to hide yet another entitlement program under a well thought out title. They're trying to make it unamerican to not want this bill and you've bought in completely. Forgive me for not taking everything they claim at face value
Click to expand...


This is the part that is a disconnect to me.

The criticisms of entitlement programs are that they are 1) wasteful; 2) abused by those receiving benefits; 3) a political payoff to a large block of voters; and 4) generate significant profits to some industry that in turn financially supports the Dems for having secured the funding in the first place.

This seems to have low potential for waste and abuse since it is being used to pay medical bills. People aren;t getting checks in the mail and then running off to Atlantic City for a weekend of hookers and blow.

The number of people affected is not big enough to render this a vote-buying exercise.

The amount of money isn't significant or concentrated enough to make it a political payback.

Comparing this to the entitlement programs where the GOP have picked up some rhetorical ammunition just isn't working. They should pick their battles better, IMO.
 
#39
#39
utvolpj said:
actually my first post on the subject was





this will make it around $16bil we have spent on a small number of people for health reason. It's money we don't have and the Dems are trying to hide yet another entitlement program under a well thought out title. They're trying to make it unamerican to not want this bill and you've bought in completely. Forgive me for not taking everything they claim at face value
Click to expand...
I do understand where you are coming from. We are in bad shape and have to examine everything we do, BUT....
To me, not doing this would be as bad as abandoning veterans injured after serving. The VA system is a well-deserved entitlement program that serves only a few compared to the whole. There are more ways than one to serve and sacrifice for your country. I just think it's the right thing to do.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#40
#40
JayVols said:
I do understand where you are coming from. We are in bad shape and have to examine everything we do, BUT....
To me, not doing this would be as bad as abandoning veterans injured after serving. The VA system is a well-deserved entitlement program that serves only a few compared to the whole. There are more ways than one to serve and sacrifice for your country. I just think it's the right thing to do.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

then why don't you push for more money if it's right thing to do?
 
#41
#41
lawgator1 said:
This is the part that is a disconnect to me.

The criticisms of entitlement programs are that they are 1) wasteful; 2) abused by those receiving benefits; 3) a political payoff to a large block of voters; and 4) generate significant profits to some industry that in turn financially supports the Dems for having secured the funding in the first place.

This seems to have low potential for waste and abuse since it is being used to pay medical bills. People aren;t getting checks in the mail and then running off to Atlantic City for a weekend of hookers and blow.

The number of people affected is not big enough to render this a vote-buying exercise.

The amount of money isn't significant or concentrated enough to make it a political payback.

Comparing this to the entitlement programs where the GOP have picked up some rhetorical ammunition just isn't working. They should pick their battles better, IMO.
Click to expand...

I'm not the GOP so your attempt to paint it as a GOP vs Dem debate here is useless. You obviously didn't read the link provided either. The agency in charge of this is not qualified and there is little oversight. This is setup to be abused not by the people being covered but by the ones administering the care.

JayVols said:
I do understand where you are coming from. We are in bad shape and have to examine everything we do, BUT....
To me, not doing this would be as bad as abandoning veterans injured after serving. The VA system is a well-deserved entitlement program that serves only a few compared to the whole. There are more ways than one to serve and sacrifice for your country. I just think it's the right thing to do.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

we've already paid out $7bil and the first responders are covered already. Why the need to further expand the program and spend even more money?

And isn't the VA an example of a program not being run very well by the gov't?
 
#42
#42
utvolpj said:
I'm not the GOP so your attempt to paint it as a GOP vs Dem debate here is useless. You obviously didn't read the link provided either. The agency in charge of this is not qualified and there is little oversight. This is setup to be abused not by the people being covered but by the ones administering the care.



we've already paid out $7bil and the first responders are covered already. Why the need to further expand the program and spend even more money?

And isn't the VA an example of a program not being run very well by the gov't?
Click to expand...

My local VA is pretty good, but your point has merit. The condition of Walter Reed a few years ago was appalling. I really do get the apprehension on govt programs, but when we have problems we usually try to fix them. The govt should as well I still am of the mind that this is the morally proper thing to do. I respect your right to disagree. The reason I started the topic was to foster some healthy productive debate, unlike what happens on The Hill.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#43
#43
utvolpj said:
I'm not the GOP so your attempt to paint it as a GOP vs Dem debate here is useless. You obviously didn't read the link provided either. The agency in charge of this is not qualified and there is little oversight. This is setup to be abused not by the people being covered but by the ones administering the care.
Click to expand...


That is simply a false statement. The opposition is solely from the GOP.

That is why I am suspicious that the opposition is 99% about keeping Obama from a victory and 1% about policy.
 
#44
#44
I'm not GOP and I'm against it.

Maybe the only reason you are defending it so strongly is because the Dems are pushing it? :question:
 
#45
#45
utvolpj said:
I'm not GOP and I'm against it.

Maybe the only reason you are defending it so strongly is because the Dems are pushing it? :question:
Click to expand...


It's because all of the people connected to it and the city are very supportive and urging its passage. Do they stand to gain politically from that? I suppose so, locally. But I dare you to point me to the mayor or governor of a state or city where this happened that wouldn't be doing that exact same thing.
 
#47
#47
droski said:
paying off your union buddies who fund their campaigns sure helps them politically. to argue this isn't a primary reason for their support is ridiculous.
Click to expand...


Covering medical bills for first responders because they belong to a union is a political payoff? Under these circumstances? That's absurd.
 
#48
#48
lawgator1 said:
It's because all of the people connected to it and the city are very supportive and urging its passage. Do they stand to gain politically from that? I suppose so, locally. But I dare you to point me to the mayor or governor of a state or city where this happened that wouldn't be doing that exact same thing.
Click to expand...

what city/state wouldn't be supportive of $8bil?

lawgator1 said:
Covering medical bills for first responders because they belong to a union is a political payoff? Under these circumstances? That's absurd.
Click to expand...

they were already covered
 
#49
#49
I think the main concern is that this fund doesn't get abused in the same manner as the settlement between the USDA and black farmers.
 
#50
#50
lawgator1 said:
Covering medical bills for first responders because they belong to a union is a political payoff? Under these circumstances? That's absurd.
Click to expand...

of course it is. under what circumstances? firefighters and policmen already have rather generous pensions and medical coverage for anyone injured during duty. to argue otherwise is ridiculous. spending 7 billion 10 years after the only event in US history to kill/injure these people in mass is nothing but a payoff. the funds raised after 9/11 are nothign but generous.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top