Chrysler 300M Enthusiasts Club
  • Republicans Block U.S. Health Aid for 9/11 Workers

  • A place to discuss the politics of the day.
Ocean City 2019 Banner

Membership Banner

A place to discuss the politics of the day.

Moderator: Moderators

 #241794  by Tarheel
 
What's the point, this is political B.S. and why would you care if you are in Canada?
User avatar
 #241801  by Bill Putney
 
It was not rejected. A move to end debate on it was voted down.

Perhaps if a case were made for making cuts somewhere to pay for this without borrowing or printing more money, there would have been no problem voting on it.

How would it have been funded/paid for? Printing and/or borrowing more money and putting just one more brick on the load on the economy is not an acceptable answer - that hurts everybody, including those not even born yet. Also, what riders are there to this bill that aren't being made public?

From the article:

"...The bill calls for providing $3.2 billion over the next eight years to monitor and treat injuries stemming from exposure to toxic dust and debris at ground zero. New York City would pay 10 percent of those health costs..."
(Congress has the Consitutional authority to obligate New York to pay costs without New York's permission? I don't think so.)

"There are nearly 60,000 people enrolled in health monitoring and treatment programs related to the 9/11 attacks, according to the sponsors of the bill. The federal government provides the bulk of the money for those programs."
User avatar
 #241803  by Bigsplash
 
Hey Bill thanks for trying to answer this question, kinda hoping you would.

However, I find it utterly reprehensible that after almost 10 years, after 9/11, these poor people, police officers, fire fighters and other emergency personnel, are still left in the lurch. Responsible for dealing with some very debilitating diseases, medical bills, and disabilities.
These people were heralded as heroes and they certainly deserve much much better, and this is how they are being treated, abandoned by their country, they so selflessly and without hesitation came to help, and did what ever it took to save lives.

There is a moral obligation to support these people, and try to make it right for them, I just don't understand, that it is even questioned, or needs to be voted on, 10 years after the fact.
User avatar
 #241805  by 300maximilien
 
Bigsplash wrote:
There is a moral obligation to support these people, and try to make it right for them, I just don't understand that, that is even questioned, or needs to be voted on, 10 years after the fact.

Why?? Why should these "heroes" be treated any better than the men and women serving the USA everyday of their lives? Or the EMT that shows up at my house to save my son's life, or the Police Officer that busts a drunk driver on the same road I am on just minutes earlier.....etc etc etc
 #241810  by 85merk
 
tarheel wrote:and why would you care if you are in Canada?
ok on your next 9/11 we won't open our airspace to land your 200+ planes on our soil and take care of the thousands of passengers because after all, we don't care apparently.

???
User avatar
 #241840  by Bill Putney
 
You're welcome, Larry.

One of the points I was attempting to make was that they are continually adding spending without making cuts to pay for very arguably worthwhile "causes".

Here are perfect examples of what I mean:
http://gatewaypundit.rightnetwork.com/2 ... hollywood/
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/PENDING+B ... 0115940090

"Wasn't this supposed to be a bill to extend tax cuts? ...'tax cut' bill is packed with $55 billion worth of sweeteners including gifts to rum producers and Hollywood."

Even when arguably good legislation (like the 9/11 bill) is introduced, it's always for the sole purpose of coercing someone else to do what they really don't want to do on an unrelated issue - it's a political game. That's the problem. Nothing is ever done for the reasons stated. And everything increases costs to convince someone else to do something without doing anything to cut costs to pay for the new costs.

And, again, what other things (that are more costs) are being tacked onto the 9/11 bill that are totally unrelated? Maybe those things need to be discussed and debated. And yet, you won't hear about those other things - only that the bill to help 9/11 victims was "blocked".

They still pretend not to get that this way of doing business is unsustainable.

Here's an interesting/funny video that is about the same insanity/shell game but on a global basis - kind of a modern version of "Who's on first":

 #241865  by Tarheel
 
85merk wrote:
tarheel wrote:and why would you care if you are in Canada?
ok on your next 9/11 we won't open our airspace to land your 200+ planes on our soil and take care of the thousands of passengers because after all, we don't care apparently.

???

Thanks for opening your air space and taking car of all of the passengers, that was nice of you.
User avatar
 #241898  by Bigsplash
 
I understand your point about money being wasted and secret deals happening under the table.
But if a government can fund $55 billion worth of sweeteners, or extend tax cuts to people that make over 250,000, or fund two pointless wars, or bail out the banking industries, but will not provide $3.2 billion over eight years to treat injuries to average folks getting hurt during the worst terror attack on US soil. Still waiting after 10 years!

Well that shows me were the priorities lie, and that I can't understand.
User avatar
 #241905  by 300maximilien
 
Bigsplash wrote: but will not provide $3.2 billion over eight years to treat injuries to average folks getting hurt during the worst terror attack on US soil. Still waiting after 10 years!
why is it such an important bullet point that these unfortunate folks need/deserve more help than the average person since it was a terrorist attack??
User avatar
 #241939  by Bill Putney
 
Bigsplash wrote:...But if a government can fund $55 billion worth of sweeteners, or extend tax cuts to people that make over 250,000, or fund two pointless wars, or bail out the banking industries, but will not provide $3.2 billion over eight years to treat injuries to average folks getting hurt during the worst terror attack on US soil. Still waiting after 10 years!...
That's a lot of cans of worms you've opened there. Can't address them all. We'd likely agree on some, and not on others.

But I don't understand not giving tax cuts across the board. To do otherwise smacks of Marxism/socialism/redistribution of wealth. Redistribution of wealth kills incentive to produce wealth, so everybody suffers. What bothers me is tax credits being given to people who didn't pay any taxes in the first place, yet they get money back from taxes paid by others - something fundamentally wrong with that.

The Modern Little Red Hen (from Ronald Reagan)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1636638/posts
A modern day little red hen may not sound like or appear to be a quotable authority on economics but then some authorities aren't worth quoting...

Once upon a time there was a little red hen who scratched about the barnyard until she uncovered some grains of wheat. She called her neighbors and said 'If we plant this wheat, we shall have bread to eat. Who will help me plant it?'

"Not I, " said the cow.

"Not I," said the duck.

"Not I," said the pig.

"Not I," said the goose.

"Then I will," said the little red hen. And she did. The wheat grew tall and ripened into golden grain. "Who will help me reap my wheat?" asked the little red hen.

"Not I," said the duck.

"Out of my classification," said the pig.

"I'd lose my seniority," said the cow.

"I'd lose my unemployment compensation," said the goose.

"Then I will," said the little red hen, and she did.

At last the time came to bake the bread. "Who will help me bake bread?" asked the little red hen.

"That would be overtime for me," said the cow.

"I'd lose my welfare benefits," said the duck.

"I'm a dropout and never learned how," said the pig.

"If I'm to be the only helper, that's discrimination," said the goose.

"Then I will," said the little red hen.

She baked five loaves and held them up for the neighbors to see.

They all wanted some and, in fact, demanded a share. But the little red hen said, "No, I can eat the five loaves myself."

"Excess profits," cried the cow.

"Capitalist leech," screamed the duck.

"I demand equal rights," yelled the goose.

And the pig just grunted.

And they painted "unfair" picket signs and marched round and around the little red hen shouting obscenities.

When the government agent came, he said to the little red hen, "You must not be greedy."

"But I earned the bread," said the little red hen.

"Exactly," said the agent. "That's the wonderful free enterprise system. Anyone in the barnyard can earn as much as he wants. But under our modern government regulations productive workers must divide their products with the idle."

And they lived happily ever after, including the little red hen, who smiled and clucked, "I am grateful, I am grateful." But her neighbors wondered why she never again baked any more bread.
User avatar
 #241961  by slimpants
 
We're quoting Ronnie Reagan's Aesop's Fables now? Good Grief. This is hilarious.



It's simple, Lawrence.

We're not as Advanced/Smart as you Canadians are. But, we'll eventually see the light.

The Bill would have passed back in September, but the GOP used a clever wedge issue; they wanted a provision included that no "undocumented" volunteer would benefit from the funds allocated. More wank using "Mexicans" (remember them?) as scapegoats for our current economic plight. Political posturing while heroes die waiting; further evidence why "For-profit" health care doesn't work.

Most of us know our system is pathetic, but we're not directly affected until we actually get really sick. So, we lap up the "Socialism/Marxism", "Hollywood", and "Govt-takeover" bullsh*t because we're donkeys. This dupes even seemingly intelligent Americans into thinking that our way of life* will be threatened if everyone is covered; i.e. none of us will be able to become the millionaires we expect to be next month.

It's likely gonna take us another generation or two before we wise up.


41 percent of us will be diagnosed with cancer at some point in our lives, and 21 percent will die from it. So, only those of us who are "fortunate" enough to get ill after age 65 are the ones that don't go bankrupt and get to live as long as you "socialist" beer-swillin', chain-smokin' Canucks.
http://www.upi.com/Health_News/2010/05/ ... 273192042/


Pick up Wendell Potter's "Deadly Spin" and you'll get an insider's first-hand account of how things work here. Read the first chapter here for free:
http://www.amazon.com/Deadly-Spin-Insur ... 737&sr=8-1



Ms. Gillibrand, the chief sponsor in the Senate, even reached out to former President George W. Bush. But her aides say Mr. Bush did not respond to her entreaties.
We busted Willie Nelson in Texas for smoking the Chronic again last week. bin Laden? Well, we're workin' on that one. Our guy is busy with his book-signing tour...



why is it such an important bullet point that these unfortunate folks need/deserve more help than the average person since it was a terrorist attack??
"More help"? That's funny. You may have forgotten that we're an Employer-based health care country. Perhaps you'd like to hire these dying humans and absorb the 1000% premium increases?
http://www.seattlepi.com/health/1500ap_ ... source=rss




:shock:


*The latest GOP concern/charade is the "estate tax". In 2009, one (1) in 500 Americans who died owed an "estate" tax. So, you have nothing to worry about. If this affected you in the least, you wouldn't be reading this Forum right now; you'd be out laying rubber in one of your Lamborghinis...
User avatar
 #241974  by Bill Putney
 
Yep - but people are able to see the contrast between truth and insanity. Glad to provide that service.

The contrast should be pretty obvious.

For example - ridiculing the truth that if you steal what those who create the wealth make (redistribution of wealth a la Marx) then those who make the wealth will quit doing so. So simple a truth, yet subject to ridicule.

Remember how 2 years ago, you'd be laughed at if you said that certain people who are now in power had a blantantly Marxist and Socialist agenda for the U.S. Now there is only one person in the entire country who will argue against that point or attempt to ridicule (in lock-step Saul Alinsky's 'Rules for Radicals' style) those who say it.

BTW - can I start making derogatory and intentionally offensive remarks about Allah and Mahummad? Would that be OK with everybody?
User avatar
 #241979  by beespecial
 
ATTENTION SLIMPANTS

This forum was created to allow people to express some their political views. Not for name-calling. KEEP IT CIVIL.

Obviously there will be opposing political viewpoints but please, refrain from this kind of behaviour while trying making your point.
User avatar
 #241983  by 300maximilien
 
Bill Putney wrote: BTW - can I start making derogatory and intentionally offensive remarks about Allah and Mahummad? Would that be OK with everybody?
Please no....I think we can all agree that that is not necessary for an intelligent person to get their point across

I enjoy good debate as much as the next guy, but anyone that does that looses all credibility with me. Personal, religious and even intelligence attacks are not needed. One only needs to argue their point with "their view of the facts".

And I know you were kidding Bill :wink:
User avatar
 #241984  by 300maximilien
 
slimpants wrote:
why is it such an important bullet point that these unfortunate folks need/deserve more help than the average person since it was a terrorist attack??
"More help"? That's funny. You may have forgotten that we're an Employer-based health care country. Perhaps you'd like to hire these dying humans and absorb the 1000% premium increases?
http://www.seattlepi.com/health/1500ap_ ... source=rss
See I just don't get these types of arguments. Why should I have to pay for someone else's choice to not save money to pay for a rainy day medical service?

Is your only reason because you feel we are morally obligated to help the less fortunate at any and all costs? We should just toss out survival of the fittest/richest/craftiest
User avatar
 #242011  by slimpants
 
Sorry about the crack. Force of habit. I thought I had Special Dispensation on account of being raised Catholic. :roll:

beespecial wrote:This forum was created to allow people to express some their political views. Not for name-calling. KEEP IT CIVIL.
I think I've been quite civil, actually. I don't feel I browbeat and I don't start political threads; I simply reply to the stuff here I believe to be lies, misinformation, or gratuitous unfunny cheap shots.

I suppose the repeated chirps re "You stinkin' Commie!!" aren't really being directed at me; just at my words, huh?? :lol:
They're highly amusing, I mussay.






Redistribution of wealth. The wealth continues to be distributed to a select few at the top. The "real" stealing is done via Lobbyists' successful efforts to change the rules/laws in their favor.

We need a leveling of the playing field or there will no longer be a Middle Class to purchase the widgets. Warren Buffet punches his numbers into TurboTax and pays 17% while his secretary pays 30%. He seems to feel the disparity/inequity between rich and poor is stifling our economy; he believes his taxes should be raised.


So, we're gonna add another $80B to the debt otherwise all these jobs :?: that have been created in past ten years will cease, huh? Good grief; they send them overseas, pal.



300maximilien wrote:See I just don't get these types of arguments. Why should I have to pay for someone else's choice to not save money to pay for a rainy day medical service? Is your only reason because you feel we are morally obligated to help the less fortunate at any and all costs? We should just toss out survival of the fittest/richest/craftiest
Are you suggesting that thousands of firefighters/volunteers who sifted thru the rubble for months be left to fend for themselves? They had no idea that the respirators they were wearing were inadequate.
I wouldn't classify a lung problem as a rainy-day medical service. If we had universal care, it'd be a moot point. You'll ask: "But, how can we afford it?" One tiny reminder: we currently pay twice as much as other countries do. Are we healthier? I don't think so. All the charts and graphs point to us being the fattest nation of all.


When your 300M gets wrecked, the insurance company makes a one-time payment and they're done with ya. But, when your body gets wrecked, you're often going to have recurring costs. So, you don't want your "Provider" working against you; his goal is to save his company money. It's in his best interests that you disappear, right? That's crazed. I want a "doctor" deciding what I need/get.


Do you feel we ought to be morally obligated to provide Fire and Police services to the less fortunate; to "everyone"?



.
 #242017  by Tarheel
 
You are right, why don't we all talk about cars here instead of this political c**p? This is not a political form.
User avatar
 #242021  by Bigsplash
 
I didn't mean for this to end in a conversation about political ideology, and I didn't mean to offend anyone or be disrespectful, with my original question.

I was just truly curious about the motivation behind the denial of their health care?

I don't understand what this has to do with Socialism/Marxism implying some deep twisted fascist/stalinist agenda.

For what it is worth all the Canadians, and there were many, that have sifted through the rubble are being taken care of, no questions asked.

And if America would find herself in peril we would be the first by her side, no questions, or money asked.

BTW our economy has been the best performing one of the G8, despite our free health care, and other social programs.