| Rpruett said: What I want to know is how getting Cancer suddenly equates to being linked to specifically 9/11? Do any of these workers smoke cigarettes? Have they been exposed to similar conditions (Smoke inhilation, etc) during the course of their job (Especially Fire-Fighters)? The answer is, I'm sure people suffered illnesses from 9/11. The problem is, you can't verify who did and who didn't in a vast majority of cases. Additionally, many of these people while being patriotic, were doing 'their job' and while it is very commendable and deserving of respect, we can't necessarily pay for everyone who suffers by doing their job. Should we pay every solider who has suffered from combat? Should we pay money to families when one of their husbands, sons, etc have died in combat? There are a million different people who suffer just by doing a job they knew the risks / costs / issues associated with it. What about innocent bystanders and people who were just helping other people out during a tragedy? Why don't they get included in this bill? Were their actions any less deserving or heroic on that day? I would argue, those particular people are even MORE deserving as they acted without self-concern.
Where does it start and where does it end? What type of precedent does this set? This is what you need to be looking at in decisions like this. Ofcourse, on a compassionate, human-side we want to give these brave people as much help as they need. On a broad sense, you can't. Not without essentially breaking the system and adding more grey areas then you can count.
And by continuing to punish businesses in this country, the United States is on a crash course for a continued recession. There's a reason businesses are moving left and right out of the USA nowadays. People can hate on big corporations and businesses all they want, but at the end of the day businesses employ people. By further punishing them you just further punish people looking for jobs, people buying the said businesses products and the general collective health of the country in general. |
Yes. I didn't even try to start on that one, but the health claims are so ridiculous in the first place.
Every rescue worker who got a cancer blames it on 9/11 even if they got it only one year after the event (which is extremely unlikely). It's natural, but it's pathetic.
This is the USA law suit system in action, and shows how extremely sick it is.
It's the same thing when a guy goes to McDonalds and spills coffee on himself and then sues them for $1 million Dollars because he thinks the coffee they make is too hot. All sorts of corrupt people will always take advantage of the situation by using the bizarre and overpowered law suit based system in the USA when something out of the ordinary happens.
This is a scandal, but from the other way around. Look at it. You have two or three sky skrapers collaps, and all sorts of rescue workers go in and search the debree for a few days to months and they get exposed to some dust and chemicals. And those health problems are supposed to cost a quarter of the yearly health bill of the population of Sweden?! Because three buildings collapsed?
Sick sick sick.
I do not know the exact motivation or political reason for the Rep to vote no, but the proposed bill by the Democrats in the first place is only political and politically correct and based on emotions, to rile up emotions and take advantage of the 9/11 trauma, to use people who feel sorry for "our heroes" (yes they are indeed heroes but no, their health care expenses are not measured in the billions). They're using this proposed bill as a political manipulative tool. It's all based on manipulation and taking advantage of 9/11 and people's vulnerability after a catastrophy. It's not based on any rationality or any reason or any real worry.
The reactions in this thread are so primitive I'm about to puke. It's the classic "The rich are screwing the little guy again!".
Stop these pathetic knew jerk reactions. I know that some of you are intelligent people. Use your brains.
