9/11 responders bill defeated by GOP filibuster

[Deeko]

I'm trying not to choke on the hypocrisy... but it's so thick!

Hardly. As I said, I attempt to have rational discussion, and this becomes impossible when children like eskimospy are clogging the forums with their lies.

Well if its such common knowledge, you probably don't need to devote so much time to it. Let's discuss the bill, or lack thereof, eh?

Just making sure that you know everyone else understands you are a liar. No one is fooled.

Anyway - if you'd like to discuss the bill, fine. I think a bill like this is a good idea. However, the Democratic party's slimy tactics to try to bring it out during a time when they know Republicans already said they'd block anything that comes through is pathetic. They just wanted to be able to say "Look! Republicans hate 9/11 responders!". Its about a sound bite, not about caring for the well being of the responders. If it were that important to them, they would have passed it long ago.

 

[dainthomas]

Does any first responder "expect" it to be their day? No, but all first responders know that if could be. That's what training is for.

Fortunately most people disagree with you and Apple of Sodom. Although I give credit for honestly trying to argue such a (misguided) opinion, I guarantee any poll conducted would show overwhelming support for health care for first responders. You can't really argue that.

 

[Deeko]

STATEMENT OF REPUBLICAN POLICY
H.R. 847- James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2009

Excerpt:

The bill provides incentives to health care providers to over-utilize services while at the same time providing inflated reimbursement rates. H.R. 847 would reimburse New York area hospitals at a rate that is on average 140 percent of the Medicare reimbursement rate. This provides a perverse incentive for hospitals to use unnecessary services in order to garner higher payments from the federal government. Since ObamaCare slashes over $150 billion in payments to every hospital in the country, it is especially difficult to justify the creation of a new program that provides reimbursement rates so far above the Medicare payment level in the New York City area.

This legislation is paid for with a highly controversial tax increase on companies located in the United States and employing American workers. Specifically, the tax increase targets “insourcing” companies, American subsidiaries of companies headquartered abroad that create and sustain good jobs in the United States. Taxing these employers and these jobs would be dangerous for our already struggling economy, could encourage these companies to move American jobs overseas or to curtail future job-creating investments in America, and could invite retaliation by other countries.

Republicans continue to believe that those who responded to the WTC attack should get the treatment and liability protection they need because they dutifully answered a call for help. In addition, the legislation should include protections to ensure taxpayer dollars are spent properly and effectively. But, H.R. 847 fails to accomplish these goals. Instead, it creates a massive new entitlement program, exposes taxpayers to increased litigation, and is “paid for” with tax increases and potential job losses. As a result, Republicans are opposed to the legislation in its current form.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

The Republican Cloakroom
House Republican Leader John Boehner

http://repcloakroom.house.gov/news/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=209259

Statements like this could be taken more seriously if they didn't include buzzwords like "Obamacare". They're just trying to tie this to a term they know their voter base doesn't like, even though there's no real reason to do so.

 

[dainthomas]

If it were that important to them, they would have passed it long ago.

They tried months ago, as has been stated repeatedly (and you've obviously ignored). Just admit Republicans are being greedy two-faced dirtbags.

 

[fskimospy]

Just making sure that you know everyone else understands you are a liar. No one is fooled.

Anyway - if you'd like to discuss the bill, fine. I think a bill like this is a good idea. However, the Democratic party's slimy tactics to try to bring it out during a time when they know Republicans already said they'd block anything that comes through is pathetic. They just wanted to be able to say "Look! Republicans hate 9/11 responders!". Its about a sound bite, not about caring for the well being of the responders. If it were that important to them, they would have passed it long ago.

As for your opinion of me, can it. You're probably still mad that I showed how full of shit you were about security clearances. Get over it and stop whining about how mean I am.

I have already repeatedly stated, it WAS brought up months ago and failed in the House. Republicans tried to fill it with poison pill amendments, and then after it was brought to a vote in a form that disallowed them, they voted against it overwhelmingly to block it. (such amendment free bills have a higher bar for passage than a simple majority)

 

[Deeko]

They tried months ago, as has been stated repeatedly (and you've obviously ignored). Just admit Republicans are being greedy two-faced dirtbags.

I said a long time ago, which a few months is not.

In case you didn't know - 9/11 happened in 2001. This past summer was still, ya know, almost 9 years later. I didn't see Democrats clamoring to push this through when they took control of congress in 2006, or when they had the supermajority. I will freely admit that Republicans - like Democrats and most professional politicians - are two-faced dirtbags. Do you admit that Democrats are only pushing this for political reasons?

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

So republicans are consistently opposed to medical benefits. I disagree with them, but at least they are consistent.

 

[fskimospy]

I said a long time ago, which a few months is not.

In case you didn't know - 9/11 happened in 2001. This past summer was still, ya know, almost 9 years later. I didn't see Democrats clamoring to push this through when they took control of congress in 2006, or when they had the supermajority. I will freely admit that Republicans - like Democrats and most professional politicians - are two-faced dirtbags. Do you admit that Democrats are only pushing this for political reasons?

The long term health care problems that this bill is designed to address have only come up as serious problems in recent years... because they are long term. Legislation takes time to craft and implement, and while it's certainly possible for it to have come up before 2010, it probably wouldn't have been really feasible until the last couple of years. (of course at which time it probably also would have been accused of being politics)

 

[Deeko]

As for your opinion of me, can it. You're probably still mad that I showed how full of shit you were about security clearances. Get over it and stop whining about how mean I am.

Hmm - I stopped reading that thread a long time ago, did you respond back to me? Maybe I'll go see what you had to say, but it has nothing to do with this thread, so there's no use in continuing that discussion here. The funny part is, I forgot that was even you in that thread until you brought it up now.

Clearly you have some sort of a personal problem with me (go whine to mommy, maybe she'll help), meanwhile you are still just some faceless liar to me. I called you out for being a liar here because you were, in fact, lying. Don't worry, you have done nothing memorable enough for me to recognize your username.

I have already repeatedly stated, it WAS brought up months ago and failed in the House. Republicans tried to fill it with poison pill amendments, and then after it was brought to a vote in a form that disallowed them, they voted against it overwhelmingly to block it. (such amendment free bills have a higher bar for passage than a simple majority)

For those of you that lack the ability to discern the difference between "a few months" and "a long time", I cleared that up in my last post. Read it a bit harder before replying.

 

[Deeko]

The long term health care problems that this bill is designed to address have only come up as serious problems in recent years... because they are long term. Legislation takes time to craft and implement, and while it's certainly possible for it to have come up before 2010, it probably wouldn't have been really feasible until the last couple of years. (of course at which time it probably also would have been accused of being politics)

Note that both time frames I suggested as better ones to bring up this legislation were, in fact, in the last few years, and over half a decade after 9/11.

 

[Throckmorton]

Hardly. As I said, I attempt to have rational discussion, and this becomes impossible when children like eskimospy are clogging the forums with their lies.



Just making sure that you know everyone else understands you are a liar. No one is fooled.

Anyway - if you'd like to discuss the bill, fine. I think a bill like this is a good idea. However, the Democratic party's slimy tactics to try to bring it out during a time when they know Republicans already said they'd block anything that comes through is pathetic. They just wanted to be able to say "Look! Republicans hate 9/11 responders!". Its about a sound bite, not about caring for the well being of the responders. If it were that important to them, they would have passed it long ago.

Republicans have opposed the bill from the beginnng, their excuse being that spending needed to be cut elsewhere to pay for it.

 

[LumbergTech]

So republicans are consistently opposed to medical benefits. I disagree with them, but at least they are consistent.

consistency isnt really respectable when its in a bad way

 

[fskimospy]

Hmm - I stopped reading that thread a long time ago, did you respond back to me? Maybe I'll go see what you had to say, but it has nothing to do with this thread, so there's no use in continuing that discussion here. The funny part is, I forgot that was even you in that thread until you brought it up now.

Clearly you have some sort of a personal problem with me (go whine to mommy, maybe she'll help), meanwhile you are still just some faceless liar to me. I called you out for being a liar here because you were, in fact, lying. Don't worry, you have done nothing memorable enough for me to recognize your username.

For those of you that lack the ability to discern the difference between "a few months" and "a long time", I cleared that up in my last post. Read it a bit harder before replying.

I assure you I have no personal problem with you, this is probably yet another black mark against my already contemptible character but I've actually enjoyed tweaking you because it's fun to watch you get all indignant like this.

I will do my best to read posts of yours that occur after mine a bit harder before replying in the future, but my flux capacitor is in the shop right now so you may have to bear with me. Can you tell us what approximate time frame you think this bill should have been passed in?

 

[Deeko]

Your flux capacitor isn't necessary to understand that a few months isn't a long time ago - which is what my first post said. I have also not seen anyone deny that the Democrats are only pushing this now for the political sound bite - people are deflecting the question, but not directly disagreeing.

The bill should have been put forth when they realized there were long term health issues that were either known or hidden. I'm certainly no expert as to the history of these things, but I imagine it was a good deal prior to summer of 2010.

 

[Patranus]

Maybe the Democrats should listen to the people of this country and the message they sent them this last November and focus on the extension of current tax rates.

 

[dainthomas]

I said a long time ago, which a few months is not.

In case you didn't know - 9/11 happened in 2001. This past summer was still, ya know, almost 9 years later. I didn't see Democrats clamoring to push this through when they took control of congress in 2006, or when they had the supermajority. I will freely admit that Republicans - like Democrats and most professional politicians - are two-faced dirtbags. Do you admit that Democrats are only pushing this for political reasons?

I will admit that Dems are often two-faced dirtbags also. And on this issue there is certainly a political component to bringing it up now. However there is also likely some part of them that believes paying for these long term health issues is the right thing to do. Nothing good can come from Republicans opposing this.

So on this issue Dems win. Or at least they lose less than Repubs do. But we all lose with these kind of games, so it probably doesn't matter.

 

[fskimospy]

So you're saying 2006 would have been a good time? Well for a general timeline of illnesses like this bill is supposed to address we can always check the Wiki on it. It shows that most troubles of the sort this bill is supposed to address didn't even show up until almost 2007, and most studies of more serious effects, the type of which would attract congressional attention weren't coming until between 2008 and present. Hell, the study of the effects on the FDNY wasn't even published until April of this year.

On what basis would you have had Congress passing this legislation in 2006?

 

[Deeko]

So you're saying 2006 would have been a good time? Well for a general timeline of illnesses like this bill is supposed to address we can always check the Wiki on it. It shows that most troubles of the sort this bill is supposed to address didn't even show up until almost 2007, and most studies of more serious effects, the type of which would attract congressional attention weren't coming until between 2008 and present. Hell, the study of the effects on the FDNY wasn't even published until April of this year.

On what basis would you have had Congress passing this legislation in 2006?

If they didn't know about it in 2006, obviously my most recent post clarifies that (no flux capacitor necessary). I also suggested when they had a supermajority. There really wasn't much option for Republican opposition then, and per your timetables, they knew about the issue by then. They could have tried then.

I realize it takes time to put a bill together, but the scope of this bill isn't exactly the same as the health care bill, it doesn't take THAT long.

Thank you dainthomas for actually addressing my question about the Democrats political agenda here - and I agree with you.

 

[jackstar7]

Hardly. As I said, I attempt to have rational discussion, and this becomes impossible when children like eskimospy are clogging the forums with their lies.

Okay this one's on me. I didn't realize that calling your fellow posters "children" was a means to raising the debate. It looks exactly like a lazy insult.

 

[Deeko]

Okay this one's on me. I didn't realize that calling your fellow posters "children" was a means to raising the debate. It looks exactly like a lazy insult.

He was acting like a child, so I pointed it out. Do you think that when someone repeatedly lies in a discussion, that they shouldn't be called out on it? Will it stop him from lying in the future? Eh, probably not, but its worth a shot.

 

[fskimospy]

If they didn't know about it in 2006, obviously my most recent post clarifies that (no flux capacitor necessary). I also suggested when they had a supermajority. There really wasn't much option for Republican opposition then, and per your timetables, they knew about the issue by then. They could have tried then.

I realize it takes time to put a bill together, but the scope of this bill isn't exactly the same as the health care bill, it doesn't take THAT long.

Thank you dainthomas for actually addressing my question about the Democrats political agenda here - and I agree with you.

I get the impression that you're getting your indictment of their timing from a vague feeling that it should have happened significantly sooner than July of 2010.

Had this legislation been put up in 2008, it would have been similarly dismissed as electioneering, and unfortunately 2009 was consumed by far larger and vastly more important legislative battles than this. While I agree that there probably was some time in the last Congressional session before July to squeeze this in, that could be said about almost any bill still up before Congress.

 

[Throckmorton]

I will admit that Dems are often two-faced dirtbags also. And on this issue there is certainly a political component to bringing it up now. However there is also likely some part of them that believes paying for these long term health issues is the right thing to do. Nothing good can come from Republicans opposing this.

So on this issue Dems win. Or at least they lose less than Repubs do. But we all lose with these kind of games, so it probably doesn't matter.

This is the second time Republicans blocked the bill. The first time it was by trying to attach "poison pills". They seem to be morally opposed to this for some reason.

 

[fskimospy]

He was acting like a child, so I pointed it out. Do you think that when someone repeatedly lies in a discussion, that they shouldn't be called out on it? Will it stop him from lying in the future? Eh, probably not, but its worth a shot.

Keep defending the internet from accusations of autism, it desperately needs your help.

 

[jackstar7]

He was acting like a child, so I pointed it out. Do you think that when someone repeatedly lies in a discussion, that they shouldn't be called out on it? Will it stop him from lying in the future? Eh, probably not, but its worth a shot.

Yeah to borrow your metaphor, when there's a kid throwing a tantrum in the store, I just buy my stuff and leave. I don't take it upon myself to parent someone else's kid.

That's nice of you to take responsibility though. I'm sure eskimo has learned a lot from your scolding. I don't know why you think it was futile.

As for filling a thread with lies, maybe you should do better than just "calling them out" and actually refute them. This was a hyper-subjective situation that you treated like an objective one.


But maybe you can go back to talking about the space-time continuum and how long-term medical problems should have been addressed before they existed.

 

[xj0hnx]

Fortunately most people disagree with you and Apple of Sodom. Although I give credit for honestly trying to argue such a (misguided) opinion, I guarantee any poll conducted would show overwhelming support for health care for first responders. You can't really argue that.

Are you always so dishonest? This isn't about their health care, it's about an extra $7B+ for doing what they already get paid to do. They have health care, great plans I might add. Your appeal to emotion is the misguided opinion. I guarantee any poll conducted to give every person in America a billion dollars would show overwhelming support for it.