Printable View
And the smaller situations are dealt with with the local/state government also.
When you make a blanket law like that, you are begging for fraud, it's not possible to extend that to everyone just because of a few cases here and there. In some case there were to be another attack, then health problems like this arose, then we can say it was wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by R13
Not disagreeing with you on the froud BUT it still does not make it right that people in 2 differant parts of the country will get treated differantly based solely on where they live to me that just seems wrong....If the fire fighters that worked 9/11 and now have related health problems diserve special treatment so does the the guy in Kingsport that has the same issues due to fighting fires there IMHO there is (or should not be) any differance
Like I've said several times, this was normal on the job complications, a house-fire that's out in no more than an hour is routine(not taking away from what they do), but working at ground zero(this isn't just firefighters by any means) for an extended amount of time comes with a thousand times more the health risks than something routine in kingsport or elsewhere. This is a federal matter and this has effected many, many people...it had to be acted on at that level, the scattered incidents here and there couldn't possibly be, nor should it be, acted on at the fed. level like that. They are very, very different.
What about the citizens in the area who have similar health issues because of the bombings that were not workers? Are they covered also?
Not that I know of, is there even people that live that close to it? I would bet it's mostly all businesses near ground zero. And if there are ones that live that close to it, I'd imagine they weren't there too much after the area was closed off, cleaned up and inspected for months after.
There was a lot of housing around it. Numerous apartment complexes especially. What I think we get into here is discrimination if we find a lot of workers getting these deals when Joe American doesnt and he/she was dealing with the hazardous fumes and such as well and not knowing where we stop since this has became a "federal issue".
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1inStripes
That is what I was getting at it seems to me we are saying that the health of those in NY is more important than the health of those in Utah.....the avg citizan is in the back of the line in all cases
I wouldn't call the people who rushed in to help when they didn't have to for the 9/11 disaster an "avg citizan". They went above and beyond the call of duty to try to rescue people after what happened.
For instance--let's say a Fireman from Oklahoma went to NYC to help w/the 9/11 efforts. Lots of people traveled from all across the country to come and help in the efforts. Let's say said Fireman suffered an injury attempting to rescue one of the people, or at worst recover a body so it could be buried respectfully...BUT...they were denied healthcare for the injury by their work's insurance plan b/c they suffered the injury 1) outside of their jurisdiction, and 2) off the clock.
The only people that makes sense to is the insurance company denying the coverage. I'm pretty sure anyone else with half a patriotic heart and sound mind can agree that the Fireman deserves to be taken care of for his service to the country in that time of crisis.
Why not extend VA health benefits to these people? They may have not been active military duty, but 9/11 was an "act of war" and led to the wars in Iraq/Afghanistan. In my eyes, these people were serving their country in war time, though war hadn't been declared yet.
I figured there might be some apartments around it, but that's about it. As I've said, during the clean-up/recovery period, it was all closed down around it. Plus the infrastructure of the buildings around also was an issue, I highly doubt anyone was living that close to ground zero for many months. And I don't think so at all, that can and would be dealt with on a smaller level in those cases as it should, it's not like the bill prohibits that. A terrorist attack is a federal issue, even just the fact it's on this level with this many people, special circumstances exist.Quote:
Originally Posted by 1inStripes
It's not "those in new york", it's about a terrorist attack site that happens to be in New York and responders to it. It really never crossed my mind that this could be taken as that and I don't see how it could be, even the ones that voted against it didn't argue it because of this. Again, it's not like in these scattered incidents that they can't and won't be handled with the local levels like they should.Quote:
Originally Posted by Counts
Quote:
Originally Posted by R13
Not sure how you could take it any other way IMHO the cause should not dictate the result.....I am with Cane as far as extending va benifits to them however I think if that if you do it for that situation you need to do it for all situations that is all I am arguing