9/11 responders bill defeated by GOP filibuster

Page 9 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,964
55,355
136
woah, what?

All firefighters know these risks. They have insurance through their jobs.

Uhmm, there might be more awareness of that now, but there absolutely wasn't that awareness then, and that's undisputed. In fact, the EPA has gotten a lot of heat for falsely telling people that the air was safe to breathe when it most certainly was not.

Not only that, but the entire point of this bill even existing is that these people have conditions that aren't covered by how their jobs were set up.

This is really a no brainer.
 

alkemyst

No Lifer
Feb 13, 2001
83,769
19
81
Uhmm, there might be more awareness of that now, but there absolutely wasn't that awareness then, and that's undisputed. In fact, the EPA has gotten a lot of heat for falsely telling people that the air was safe to breathe when it most certainly was not.

Not only that, but the entire point of this bill even existing is that these people have conditions that aren't covered by how their jobs were set up.

This is really a no brainer.

public awareness <> professional awareness.

If any firefighter enters an older building esp and doesn't think of at least asbestos, not to mention the 1,000s of items that burn with toxic/carcinogenic gases...they must have not been paying attention at fireman school.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,964
55,355
136
public awareness <> professional awareness.

If any firefighter enters an older building esp and doesn't think of at least asbestos, not to mention the 1,000s of items that burn with toxic/carcinogenic gases...they must have not been paying attention at fireman school.

Ahhh, so now your argument style is making things up despite explicit evidence to the contrary.

Why don't you go spend about 15 minutes reading up from objective sources on the issues currently facing these guys, along with the analysis of the air, etc at ground zero during and after the WTC attack. Then you can stop making these silly posts.
 

Gyhrg71

Member
Dec 8, 2010
145
0
0
The US Chamber of Commerce lobbied to kill a bill that would have helped cover medical expenses and compensation for first responders and survivors of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, according to documents available online.

The Chamber's aim was to keep open a tax loophole benefiting foreign corporations that the $7.4 billion bill would have closed to provide funding for the American emergency workers.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/chamber-commerce-lobbied-kill-911-responders-bill/
 

alkemyst

No Lifer
Feb 13, 2001
83,769
19
81
Ahhh, so now your argument style is making things up despite explicit evidence to the contrary.

Why don't you go spend about 15 minutes reading up from objective sources on the issues currently facing these guys, along with the analysis of the air, etc at ground zero during and after the WTC attack. Then you can stop making these silly posts.

Please, how about you explain it? Make sure you look up how they are covered to begin with.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,964
55,355
136
Please, how about you explain it? Make sure you look up how they are covered to begin with.

No. You made a statement that the risks of fighting the fires at the WTC were both known and covered by firefighter/EMT/police training and health plans. Go back up your statement with objective sources.
 

mooseracing

Golden Member
Mar 9, 2006
1,711
0
0
In fact, the EPA has gotten a lot of heat for falsely telling people that the air was safe to breathe when it most certainly was not.
.

Why would anyone with common sense even believe them when you look at what was destroyed and where all that debris went.


Between this and people getting fired for stopping thefts at workplaces, you can't legally help anyone without expecting a lawsuit against you or the other party getting a lawsuit against them to pay for damages. There are way to many precedents being set with these kinds of things.
 
Dec 10, 2005
28,726
13,892
136
I can't wait for the inane arguments presented here to playout once again and watch as this bill attempts to navigate once more through Congressional intransigence. The Zadroga bill must be reauthorized, otherwise the health coverage it conferred to people that lived and worked around the WTC ends in late 2015 and 2016. We owe it to these people to make sure they are taken care of.

After 9/11 we vowed to never forget. That vow comes with an obligation to ensure that we as a country remember and honor those we lost that day and to care for those who became ill as a direct result of being exposed to toxins during the rescue and recovery work at Ground Zero 13 years ago.


The James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act helped make good on that promise by establishing the World Trade Center Health Program and reopening the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund. These programs provide medical treatment and financial compensation to the thousands of responders and survivors who were harmed at the World Trade Center, Pentagon and Shanksville, Pa., sites.

Although these programs are still necessary, they are set to expire in October 2015 and October 2016, respectively, if Congress does not act. That is why we will soon introduce the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Reauthorization Act to extend these programs for an additional 25 years. Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) and Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) are introducing the same bill in the Senate.

...
http://thehill.com/opinion/op-ed/217361-congress-must-reauthorize-the-zadroga-act