CenterBHSFan;610139 wrote:Honestly Cbus.... You don't see a pattern here? You really don't understand EVERYTHING that Believer is referring to?
It's right there. It's on this forum, it's on the news, it's in DC, it's everywhere.

If we're going to be "honest", that means all of us, not just some.

Oh, i understand it, just annoyed that the same thing comes up on every thread.

I guess it is just the phrasing that is annoying.

It would be like me, as a liberal, whenever Democrats come up in a thread, whining about how i belong to this "unAmerican, lazy, socialist" group. I've seen him engage in the same sorts of generalizations about liberals that he is whining about with the comments about being an "eevil" Republican.

Just tired of the BS. Does nothing to contribute to the debate whatsoever.

And, that is from both sides.

Rational people know that.

And, i'm pretty sure i have Stlouie on ignore, for some reason, as i'm not seeing any of his posts on this thread.

I don't see it because i have the people who make such comments, like Stlouie, on ignore.

I can't say that i am all for the Republicans reasons for originally blocking this bill, but i understand them, and know that it isn't because Republicans are just mean-spirited people who want our heroes to die.

I enjoy reading Believers posts. Just always ticks something inside me when i see the "eevil" comment. I don't like people playing the victim card, whether they are democrats or republicans. I understand where the comments are coming from, but don't think you need to revel in them. Plenty of other conservative posts on here are able to just ignore it and respond without tremendous amounts of hyperbole.

ptown_trojans_1;610249 wrote:It just paced by voice vote in the Senate, will head to the House where it should be passed later today. $4.28 billion over five years, with funds by closing a corporate tax loophole.

Not that I'm against closing loopholes, but the fact that they are paying for this spending with new revenue as opposed to spending cuts is a pretty clear signal that they aren't serious about the deficit.

ptown_trojans_1;610249 wrote:It just paced by voice vote in the Senate, will head to the House where it should be passed later today. $4.28 billion over five years, with funds by closing a corporate tax loophole.

Hhmm....let's see now. It started as $7.4 billion and then went to $6.2 billion, and is now a tad under $4.3 billion. At least the stymie got them to lower the amount and maybe exposed some pork.

I just don't understand how this played out 9 years later and now the American public is on the hook for insurance company malfeasance, stonewalling, and acting like David Spade. Where's the AG? Oh, that's right, he's suing Arizona and trying war criminals in regular courts.

BGFalcons82;610302 wrote:Hhmm....let's see now. It started as $7.4 billion and then went to $6.2 billion, and is now a tad under $4.3 billion. At least the stymie got them to lower the amount and maybe exposed some pork.

I just don't understand how this played out 9 years later and now the American public is on the hook for insurance company malfeasance, stonewalling, and acting like David Spade. Where's the AG? Oh, that's right, he's suing Arizona and trying war criminals in regular courts.

It played out 9 years later as there was no need before. In 2006 there was a need as the symptoms from the responders started to show. Then, pensions and health plans started to fail. NY passed the law in 2006, but again, that is pretty much gone as the cases were higher than expected.
So, it wasn't around for years. It popped up this summer, and now is passed.

So when this $4,300,000,000 (sorry, wanted to add the zeroes so that people will actually see how much it is) runs out and the first responders are still having health issues, are we going to shell out more money at that point, too? When does it end? Heaven forbid, what if another disaster such as the World Trade Center tragedy happens again?

Mister Twister;610314 wrote:So when this $4,300,000,000 (sorry, wanted to add the zeroes so that people will actually see how much it is) runs out and the first responders are still having health issues, are we going to shell out more money at that point, too? When does it end? Heaven forbid, what if another disaster such as the World Trade Center tragedy happens again?

We pay for it again.
I'm sorry, but many people disagree with me obviously, but I'll sacrifice whatever to help those first responders who went above and beyond the call of duty.
To me, it is the morally right thing to do. I mean to me, this is up there with funding our troops and their healthcare.

I would be willing to have dramatic cuts elsewhere to help.

I have another concern. Is there definite proof that all of these cases (such as throat cancer) are directly and only related to 911? I mean, can there even be a chance that perhaps some of those cases might have gotten their health problems anyway? Or is everything going to be swept under the rug of "Benefit of doubt"?

I would also like to be able to see this bill just to be able to see how much money is going to BFE, Iowa to door chime makers or how much money is going to California to build a bridge over a rare turtles walking trails so that they don't get hurt.
Is there a link to see for myself floating around anywhere?

ptown_trojans_1;610319 wrote:We pay for it again.
I'm sorry, but many people disagree with me obviously, but I'll sacrifice whatever to help those first responders who went above and beyond the call of duty.
To me, it is the morally right thing to do. I mean to me, this is up there with funding our troops and their healthcare.

I would be willing to have dramatic cuts elsewhere to help.

Then can't they give those people special passes to go to their local VA hospitals?

CenterBHSFan;610353 wrote:Then can't they give those people special passes to go to their local VA hospitals?

Possibly. I wouldn't have minded that as well.

CenterBHSFan;610351 wrote:I have another concern. Is there definite proof that all of these cases (such as throat cancer) are directly and only related to 911? I mean, can there even be a chance that perhaps some of those cases might have gotten their health problems anyway? Or is everything going to be swept under the rug of "Benefit of doubt"?

I would also like to be able to see this bill just to be able to see how much money is going to BFE, Iowa to door chime makers or how much money is going to California to build a bridge over a rare turtles walking trails so that they don't get hurt.
Is there a link to see for myself floating around anywhere?

Spot on, Center. We've all been around politics long enough to know there is goodies for people/organizations not even remotely connected to the original intent of the bill. Happens pretty much all of the time in DC. I'm hoping the sunshine of the debate is responsible for washing out nearly $3,000,000,000 in buried treasure.

You asked for a link to the bill...I'm going to assume it's 2000 pages long like every other farking bill these nimrods came up with over the past 2 years. Hey Nancy...can we read the damn thing after you pass it again?

Is it January yet?

cbus4life;610267 wrote:I enjoy reading Believers posts. Just always ticks something inside me when i see the "eevil" comment. I don't like people playing the victim card, whether they are democrats or republicans. I understand where the comments are coming from, but don't think you need to revel in them. Plenty of other conservative posts on here are able to just ignore it and respond without tremendous amounts of hyperbole.

The hyperbole is by design. I'm so sick and fucking tired of the bullshit tactics from the left that attempt to manipulate the emotions of the unsuspecting and ignorant to insinuate that Republicans or conservatives are uncaring.

YES, Stewart has been whining about this for months but don't you find the fact that the "mainstream" media, for example, is all of a sudden interested in it? It's not Stewart's boo hooing that gets my undies in a bunch. It's the incessant media spin that constantly sheds a bad light on conservatism whenever politically expedient that pisses me off. And it's politically expedient because the media is already trying to convince the American electorate that now that the Repubs are assuming power, chances are the downtrodden and the NYC first responders are going to be shafted as a result.

And I will shout it from the rooftop each and every time I see the media bias. My hyperbole is just a mechanism to vent my frustration with this crap.

believer;610461 wrote:The hyperbole is by design. I'm so sick and fucking tired of the bullshit tactics from the left that attempt to manipulate the emotions of the unsuspecting and ignorant to insinuate that Republicans or conservatives are uncaring.

YES, Stewart has been whining about this for months but don't you find the fact that the "mainstream" media, for example, is all of a sudden interested in it? It's not Stewart's boo hooing that gets my undies in a bunch. It's the incessant media spin that constantly sheds a bad light on conservatism whenever politically expedient that pisses me off. And it's politically expedient because the media is already trying to convince the American electorate that now that the Repubs are assuming power, chances are the downtrodden and the NYC first responders are going to be shafted as a result.

And I will shout it from the rooftop each and every time I see the media bias. My hyperbole is just a mechanism to vent my frustration with this crap.

Fair enough, i understand what you're saying, guess i'm just venting my frustration at the constant hyperbole fomr everyone, whereas you're using said hyperbole to vent your frustration. What a dilemna that is!

CenterBHSFan;610351 wrote:I have another concern. Is there definite proof that all of these cases (such as throat cancer) are directly and only related to 911? I mean, can there even be a chance that perhaps some of those cases might have gotten their health problems anyway? Or is everything going to be swept under the rug of "Benefit of doubt"?

I would also like to be able to see this bill just to be able to see how much money is going to BFE, Iowa to door chime makers or how much money is going to California to build a bridge over a rare turtles walking trails so that they don't get hurt.
Is there a link to see for myself floating around anywhere?

In that case anything other than direct bodily injuries should not be covered.

believer;610461 wrote:The hyperbole is by design. I'm so sick and fucking tired of the bullshit tactics from the left that attempt to manipulate the emotions of the unsuspecting and ignorant to insinuate that Republicans or conservatives are uncaring.

YES, Stewart has been whining about this for months but don't you find the fact that the "mainstream" media, for example, is all of a sudden interested in it? It's not Stewart's boo hooing that gets my undies in a bunch. It's the incessant media spin that constantly sheds a bad light on conservatism whenever politically expedient that pisses me off. And it's politically expedient because the media is already trying to convince the American electorate that now that the Repubs are assuming power, chances are the downtrodden and the NYC first responders are going to be shafted as a result.

And I will shout it from the rooftop each and every time I see the media bias. My hyperbole is just a mechanism to vent my frustration with this crap.

I'm equally as sick of the Right trying to act like they are "real" Americans or somehow have the moral high ground.

I Wear Pants;611079 wrote:In that case anything other than direct bodily injuries should not be covered.

I'm not exactly saying/wanting that either, Pants. But I also have a hard time just putting anybody and every illness under one umbrella that leads up to 10,000 people. There's just something that's not groovin realistically with me and ALOT of other folks with that number. In fact, I would almost say that it might even be impossible to have that number be real.
Plus the fact that the monetary number was so drastically whittled away alerts me to the fact that there had to be some shenanigans in the first place.

All I'm saying is that there has to be a realistic discernment going on. I don't see it happening. I see politics and emotional grandstanding.

Are there people who actually are suffering long/short term effects from 911? YES!
Are there some people that I believe cannot directly link their illness to 911? YES!
Are there people on the take? YES! (and this is probably more political than individual people)


Again, it's not that I don't want the deserving people to be helped. My whole life is centered around taking care of and helping people, literally. But on the same token I have a hard time voluntarily being "all in" for a cause when I highly suspect fraud, whether individually or politically. And if just looking at those numbers didn't raise any red flags AT ALL for people, then I'm very sorry for them.

Yeah but you figure those numbers are not just for medical bills but they also provide financial support because many of the people cannot work anymore. And doesn't the bill provide this support into 2030 something? That makes it seem a lot less ridiculous. They aren't just giving everyone half a million dollars.

I Wear Pants;611179 wrote:Yeah but you figure those numbers are not just for medical bills but they also provide financial support because many of the people cannot work anymore. And doesn't the bill provide this support into 2030 something? That makes it seem a lot less ridiculous. They aren't just giving everyone half a million dollars.

I agree, and I'm glad that the people who need the help are going to get it. I'm just not buying that it is 10,000 people that are sick or cannot work anymore that were first responders and that can directly link it to 911.

Not buying it at all.

Ok, I could see that, but how do you determine who was and who wasn't? Because if you make it a huge hassel or don't give benefits to someone who was there helping and got sick because some committee or something decided it wasn't from 9/11 then I don't think that's acceptable.

I'd rather pay for some people who were working to save people on 9/11 and got sick but it wasn't necessarily directly from 9/11 then not pay for even one person who was helping that did get sick directly from it.

I mean, we should look into who is getting the benefits to make sure there isn't blatent fraud but beyond that I think this is a home run.

Yeah, that's what gets me. I don't think it's logical to think that 10,000 people were first responders and that every single one of them are going through long term illnesses.

I Wear Pants;611193 wrote:I mean, we should look into who is getting the benefits to make sure there isn't blatent fraud but beyond that I think this is a home run.

I'm dead on with Center on this whole deal. It sat and sat and sat around until finally...what?. What was the trigger? A John Stewart rant? Is he THAT powerful a voice? Why so long? I'm not buyin what they're sellin. I think Center asked why they aren't all admitted to the VA system. That would be a reasonable response, wouldn't it? The fact the bill came down $3 billion in an instant is another red flag. 10,000 first responders and they're all sick? The math isn't there for me either, Center.

Lastly, I have no idea why the firefighter and police unions' insurance providers are let off their obligations. This smacks of a payoff in the worst way. Are they ALL out of business, ALL in financial straights, and ALL doing all they can? No matter, here comes America with a checkbook with no funds in the bank for them. It isn't right and this type of "legislation" has been going on for wayyyyy too long in DC.

Where is the VA going to get money to support an influx of 10,000ish more people? And the insurance providers are set up to handle cases here and there, not 10,000 all at the same time for long term care.

Glory Days;613014 wrote:Where is the VA going to get money to support an influx of 10,000ish more people? And the insurance providers are set up to handle cases here and there, not 10,000 all at the same time for long term care.

Well, if you believe that 10,000 were FIRST responders and that ALL of them are sick directly from 911, then there would be a problem with all of them going to a VA and the VA getting funded for it.

Center, then why don't you tell us which ones of these people who helped in the 9/11 first resonse and subsequent clean up and rescue efforts don't deserve to get some health care?

Where have they been denied healthcare?? The new healtcacre law signed takes care of their issues....no lifetime limits and no pre-condition denials. They receive healtcare like the rest of us, right??

So, if I understand this right, we are giving them money for doing their jobs, is that correct??

I Wear Pants;613085 wrote:Center, then why don't you tell us which ones of these people who helped in the 9/11 first resonse and subsequent clean up and rescue efforts don't deserve to get some health care?

Have you not read a thing I posted on this thread?

Have you not read where I perfectly stated my exact doubts?

I have NEVER alluded to the bill being picture perfect, and I have NEVER alluded to there being a way to determine this.

If you or anybody has any doubts about what exactly my thoughts are on this subject, I suggest that you re-read the thread.

I don't know how else I can say the same things over and over again and come up with different questions.
Does anybody have any pointers to give me?

..............

Also, I just loooooooove how my questions concerning this bill have suddenly suggested that I have all the answers LOL!!

Good grief people.