[mccookgazette.com] Fair ~ 69°F  
High: 70°F ~ Low: 41°F
Thursday, Apr. 24, 2014

If you Believe it's Right, You Vote Yes

Posted Friday, July 30, 2010, at 3:31 PM

Eight simpler words could not be expressed. "If you believe it's right, you vote yes," was voiced by Anthony Weiner a Representative in Congress from the state of New York during a tirade on the House floor. To sane, rational people this makes perfect sense. If you believe it's right, you vote yes. But sadly, for every single Republican in the House and four Democrats this apparently was not enough.

This all is in response to a vote on the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act which would have extended care for workers that were at Ground Zero on 9/11 and the weeks that followed that became ill as a result of the conditions. The only way the bill could pass was if 2/3 of the House voted for the bill. In these days and times, in this era when all we hear from Republicans is a reminder of 9/11 this vote should have easily been 435-0 for the yeas.

Unfortunately we live in the ear of "no", where Republicans will vote against anything and everything if they think it will bring good news to the Democrats. Even, sadly, if they agree 100% with the bill.

Peter King another Representative from New York, a Republican, was a co-sponsor of the bill. He voted against the bill.

For all the hooplahing over why they voted against the bill the simple truth of the matter is that they could not attach partisan amendments to the bill so instead of voting for a bill they agreed with they simply voted no.

The Democrat leadership, for their part, took a huge gamble with this bill as they moved the bill to a suspension calendar which does not allow amendments and requires a 2/3 vote for the bill to pass.

The Republicans were quick to jump out and decry the decision and blame the Democrats for the bill failing. But seriously, folks, if you agree with a bill why is there any reason ever to vote against it? For all the Republican grandstanding for years about getting pork out of the bills you would think that a bill with no amendments would be right up their alley. Apparently when it comes to workers from 9/11 they are willing to forget about them so they can get amendments on the bill.

Let us not forget that for the past nine years the Republican Party has positioned themselves as the 9/11 party, for years mentioning it in every speech given at every time. Yet when they get the chance to show support for those that worked tirelessly for days at a time looking for victims all of sudden they can not be burdened with that without at least a chance to put some amendments in that will throw some money to their home districts.

It should not have taken any courage at all to simply vote yes and take care of those unsung heroes of that time period. Instead every single Republican in the House and four Democrats, became cowards. Not because they simply voted no, but because they were blaming procedure for voting no.

This all fits in neatly with what I have been saying for months and more specifically a few days ago where we as a society have gotten to the point where we do not accept blame and we do not apologize. We blame others for our mistakes.

It was classless and disgusting move on their parts. They should be ashamed. They have proven once again that they will vote no on anything, even things that they agree with, just so Democrats or President Obama will not get any credit.

I guess what surprises me more than anything about all of this is the unwillingness of the three main cable news channels to even discuss this. They are apparently too busy with bear stories to cover any real news.

Representative Weiner's response to the vote is a classic blow up. Sometimes we get annoyed when Congressmen fake passion, like Boehner's "Hell no you can't" rant but this video shows just how upset Weiner is at the fact the Republicans and four Democrats would rather defeat a bill for partisan motivations than to help our heroes.

The politicians in Washington only care about one thing and that is getting re-elected to their office. Sad, really, but nothing new.


Comments
Showing most recent comments first
[Show in chronological order instead]

Not that some issues are not valid, but total denial is worse.These are people not numbers. 5 billion was just wasted on a foreign country's superstructure, never competed, in some cases destroyed,with basically no debated beforehand.This plus all the lives and monetary war costs.How is that reasonable?We throw money we don't have at problems on foreign soil, yet we deny care to our own, all the time. Power is the goal not responsibility , or human rights , to our people. At least that is what it appears to me.

-- Posted by whatinsurance on Mon, Aug 30, 2010, at 9:19 AM

I happen to have some occupational lung diseases that are the same as these workers got, such as rads. In my case , from an exposure several years ago. First off, due to avoidance of financial responsibility by that states wc system, I was treated for acute affects, not tested further , and released, I have been trying for most of that time since to find out what is wrong with me.This is not an everyday condition, it is not easily treated when it progresses to chronic,which happens when attempting to work and maintain this insurance mentioned above, especially when you do not know what is making you sick so are not mitigating it as much as would be advisable . I worked,hard, for years,very sick most of the time. I then reached the point where I could not do my job, or any that I am qualified to do,now I wonder if I can do anything really. I can not be around ANY irritants, this includes perfume, bbq smoke, cleaners, cooking fumes,dust, etc.(they are called irritants, but they do not simply irritate people with this condition, they can be life threatening) Think about that.

I have a shop on my property filled with tools and stuff I cant use, covered in dust now.Unfinished projects all over, how nice that makes me feel. I lost insurance about a year before becoming completely unable to do my job permanently, because I could not maintain constant work , so missed premiums(my portion) from my check,that musty be paid pretty much every pay period.I live in a house that needs some work, to put it mildly,that I can't do. I do own it , thank god it is paid for,I am still attempting (again) to reopen my wc claim, now in the process of filing ssdi, though I have been out of work for sometime.Now that I have found out, through actual testing( not paid for by wc so far) ,what is wrong, I am pursuing retraining with voc rehab. I do not really know if that will work, but I am trying it.I am flat broke, limited food, struggling to keep my lights and heat going, selling things of no use to me. Thank you so much.

I have the usual invisible disability ,intending to help sometimes,. comments. I get blanketed in stereotypes ,mostly unrealistic in my mind,of people seeking something for nothing. I was not at the towers, but I do understand how they feel, and it is only compounded with the horrific scene the rest of us only imagine at the site, anyone who can self righteously indignate the denial of their basic human rights , much less their deserved respect should be considered a criminal .

People talk to us like we do not know the meaning of will power or work, when we lost our health to exactly that.Due to exactly that attitude in our work environment.More ignorance does not cure ignorance.

-- Posted by whatinsurance on Mon, Aug 30, 2010, at 9:08 AM

I do agree with you McCook, it is truly amazing how one little word (especially the word and, it is almost always that word) can completely change what is being said.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Tue, Aug 10, 2010, at 1:10 PM

Mike,

I do need to apologize. As I was cutting and pasting this, I noticed a key word, "and" so that single word completely changes some of the concerns I had about the bill. Regular employees would not be covered as I thought under the bill. It's amazing how much one very basic and simple word can have on a bill and why our Representatives should thoroughly read these bills long before voting on them.

Ok, so if you still want it, here is the exact text of the bill which would cover anyone who was operating a business there well after the fact. Especially, new businesses that were not present until well after the attacks and the dust settled. All they have to do is be deemed eligible for a business grant that the government handed out to the businesses in the disaster area or moving into the disaster area. Btw, the disaster area is a 1.5 mile radius so that covers A LOT of businesses in New York. This is Section 3321, Paragraph B, Subparagraph V which defines eligible WTC survivors.

"v) A person whose place of employment--

`(I) at any time during the period beginning on September 11, 2001, and ending on May 31, 2003, was in the New York City disaster area; and

`(II) was deemed eligible to receive a grant from the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation WTC Small Firms Attraction and Retention Act program or other government incentive program designed to revitalize the lower Manhattan economy after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks."

Now, please tell me how someone who could move their business into a disaster area well after the attack, thereby becoming eligible for business-related grants and then be considered a "survivor" with access to treatment for any of the health benefits listed below? Not to mention a business grant should not qualify someon for health benefits because one has nothing to do with the other.

These are the covered disorders:

`(1) AERODIGESTIVE DISORDERS-

`(A) Interstitial lung diseases.

`(B) Chronic respiratory disorder--fumes/vapors.

`(C) Asthma.

`(D) Reactive airways dysfunction syndrome (RADS).

`(E) WTC-exacerbated chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

`(F) Chronic cough syndrome.

`(G) Upper airway hyperreactivity.

`(H) Chronic rhinosinusitis.

`(I) Chronic nasopharyngitis.

`(J) Chronic laryngitis.

`(K) Gastroesophageal reflux disorder (GERD).

`(L) Sleep apnea exacerbated by or related to a condition described in a previous clause.

`(2) MENTAL HEALTH CONDITIONS-

`(A) Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

`(B) Major depressive disorder.

`(C) Panic disorder.

`(D) Generalized anxiety disorder.

`(E) Anxiety disorder (not otherwise specified).

`(F) Depression (not otherwise specified).

`(G) Acute stress disorder.

`(H) Dysthymic disorder.

`(I) Adjustment disorder.

`(J) Substance abuse.

`(3) ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS- Any cancer (or type of cancer) or other condition added to the list in section 3312(a)(3) pursuant to paragraph (5) or (6) of section 3312(a), as such provisions are applied under subsection (a) with respect to certified-eligible WTC survivors.

There is much more to the bill than just this of course and much of which is good but certain aspects need to be removed so that the actual responders and survivors are receiving the maximum benefit. One more amendment, I would have made is that lawyers would not be entitled to any of the money given to first responders, survivors and their families under this act. Not even the 10% they're allowed (more if the "Special Master" approves it). This is not a settlement for a legal case and all funds to be disbursed should go to the actual victims, not lawyers who got the shaft on a big settlement commission because Congress acted first. Democrats removed the provision that barred people involved in the current lawsuit from receiving these funds. Lawyers know that if they lose a case or something unexpected happens, they don't get paid. Hasn't Washington spent enough taxpayer money on the risks other people have taken?

I would actually agree with you if an illegal immigrant qualified under the WTC Responder definition but the survivor definition is too broad and we should not pay benefits to someone who was breaking the law to be there in the first place. I think that would just be a good exception in general. If someone was down there looting a store, they should also not be covered. $8.4 Billion is a lot of money to be spending and should be more tightly regulated to limit misappropriation.

-- Posted by McCook1 on Tue, Aug 10, 2010, at 11:35 AM

Wow talk about stretching something so far that it doesn't even resemble the original text. Where are you getting this from? Are you making this up?

I do like that you go on this extended rant basing it only on the position that you are absolutely correct on what you say is in the bill.

But you are of course right. Why should people (illegal or not) get coverage for working to first save people trapped in the rubble then worked to clear the site of the toxic debris. That's just plain silly and wrong. Wow it's a lot easier to make those kind of arguments that don't take into account that whether someone is here legally or not, they are still human and they did put their own health at risk to work there, than actually putting that into account.

Whether the allusive portion of the bill that you swear is in there the fact remains that Republicans voted against the bill because of procedure. Had they actually voted against it for the reasons you continue listing they would have said that from the outset and never used the procedure line.

But hey this is 2010, where you can lie out of both sides of your mouth and people will fall for it just because they have similar beliefs.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Mon, Aug 9, 2010, at 6:29 PM

Mike,

Taken with the broad definitions that were left in the bill, the bill would allow any illegal immigrants who worked for just one day anywhere in the disaster area over a year later. It's bad enough they would offer such broad coverage under this provision to just anyone but to offer this coverage to an illegal immigrant who wasn't supposed to be there in the first place, is just ridiculous because the government shouldn't have liability for someone whose crime (being here illegally) puts them in the disaster area. They break the law to get here and then get benefits because they were in the right place while they were committing their crime? Why should that even be debated?

-- Posted by McCook1 on Mon, Aug 9, 2010, at 12:56 PM

After re-reading your comment I semi-retract my statement. The only part I actually retract is listing you as to who I was responding.

The funny thing GI is either they and their supporters don't see how flip-floppy they are or they just really hope no one else notices.

My favorite are the Republicans that were against Medicare-Medicaid before the health care debate, then for Medicare-Medicaid during the health care debate before finally being against it again after health care passed.

Then there is John McCain who used to be a moderate before he thought he might lose his seat in Arizona and took as hard a right turn as I have ever seen any Republican politician I have ever seen. He used to be for the repeal of DADT before he started his re-election, now he is against it. He used to be for Amnesty before he started his re-election, now he's against it. He used to be for being called a Maverick, before he he started his re-election and now says that he was never a maverick.

Then their is the topper of all toppers. In the last 15 years alone he has been for, against, for, against, for, and against election finance reform. He is the star of the flip-flop before John Kerry ever got that label having on at least three separate occasions sponsored election reform bills before ultimately voting against it.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Sun, Aug 8, 2010, at 10:05 AM

GI,

I am not convinced that they truly wanted to vote for the bill as they claim. I have seen it too many times over the past two years where this group of Republicans have voted against the very things they had previously supported. This Congressional Republican Caucus has flip-flopped on so many issues they make John Kerry look foolish.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Sat, Aug 7, 2010, at 11:01 PM

What does illegal immigration have anything to do with 9/11? It was purposely misleading amendment.

Let me try to make this a little clearer since you still somehow don't understand what I am saying. The Republicans SAID that THEY supported the bill. If they did as they said there was no reason at all to vote against this bill. Hiding behind procedure gave them the cover they need to vote against the bill (this is where the Democrats failed on this bill).

Had the Democrats succombed to the minority parties demand, worthless amendments (like ensuring that illegal immigrants aren't covered which is ridiculous in the first place) would have been attached that would have watered down the bill. The Republicans would have still voted against the bill.

Now, put out a bill giving more tax cuts to the rich and they will stand in line to vote yes. Cover workers for 9/11? Not so much.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Sat, Aug 7, 2010, at 1:29 PM

Mike,

"The Republicans would have voted against this bill even in regular procedure."

Really, that's not the logic you started this out with. I thought you were saying they were in support of it when it was under regular procedure? That's also not what I'm seeing reported. I was watching CNN and it looks like one of the amendments was about not allowing illegal immigrants to be covered by this taxpayer funded health bill for 9/11 workers. Based on the broad definition of who is covered under the bill (which I think those definitions are more worrisome than the illegal immigration amendment) then I could understand their concern since this bill is worded so broadly.

Republicans wanted that amendment and "others" according to her. She also said that Democrats, particularly the Hispanic Caucus didn't want to vote for the amendment but many other Democrats didn't want to vote against the amendment with elections coming up and all the attention illegal immigration is getting right now. So, the solution was that they would require the 2/3 majority which barred amendments, knowing it wouldn't pass and knowing that Republicans would look like the bad guys and they were banking on people not getting hung up on the details of why they chose that procedure.

It was great in their minds because they don't have to go on record voting for or against the illegal immigrant amendment and they can go out and proclaim outrage at Republicans for voting no. It was all a big show. She said it best when she said that each side knows the other side's whip counts before these votes. Weiner knew this wouldn't pass and then gets up there and puts on his little rant.

I believe both sides talked to each other as they do on both bills, got vote counts from each other and they had plenty of votes to get this through under a simple majority vote with amendments allowed. Democrats didn't want to deal with the political consequences of voting for or against the amendments so they chose a procedure they knew would be the death of the bill. That's the first I've heard of a specific amendment Republicans wanted but still haven't heard whether the broad defintion of those covered was also a part of those amendments. If it wasn't, it should have been.

-- Posted by McCook1 on Fri, Aug 6, 2010, at 6:47 PM

Have you seriously not been paying attention for the past two years McCook?

The Republicans would have voted against this bill even in regular procedure. They have continually over the last two years voted against anything and everything that they thought might be seen as a victory for Democrats and Obama. One only needs to think back to when Obama proposed a deficit review board. Four Republicans co-sponsored the creation until they were told to vote against it and one by one all four that co-sponsored voted against their own program.

This is nothing new so for Republicans to hide behind procedure an claim they would have voted for it is very hypocritical and transparent.

One only needs to look at the new Health Care law. The vast majority of programs and amendments in the law were proposed and supported by Republicans and yet once again they voted against their own ideas for nothing more than political gain.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Fri, Aug 6, 2010, at 6:16 PM

Mike,

"Their position was clear. Let's take care of those that tirelessly worked at Ground Zero."

If you read the bill then you would no that doesn't accurately reflect everything in the bill. If you read my earlier post you would know that the language of the bill opens it up to fraud and frivoulous claims by people who were not affected by the attacks and certainly not the rescue workers. To leave such a wide open door to fraud only reduces the benefits that would go to the true workers at 9/11. Read the bill and you'll know it's not so simple that this is just for ground zero workers, it goes way beyond that with a wide open door to fraud just begging to be exploited.

They did not articulate what they meant when they said they meant it was because of procedure. If you understand what the complete consequences of this procedure means then it makes sense. However, most people don't understand that this procedure meant no amendments or changes to the bill whatsoever. The bill had some major issues with it, as I stated in my earlier post, that needed to be resolved. I stated some of those issues needed to be resolved before it was passed but because of the PROCEDURE the Democrats chose, those corrections could not be made and they forced a vote on the bill, knowing that there was no possibility of correcting those problems with the bill.

What's wrong with wanting to pass a well written bill as opposed to trying to score political points and knowingly passing a poorly written bill? I don't think Republicans wanted to vote against this bill and it sounds like if they had a chance to make those corrections which is only possible with the regular procedure, then based on what you've said, it sounds like it would have passed. The regular procedure would have also been an up or down yes or no vote too. The only difference is that you could correct the problems in the bill first. If Republicans supported the bill with the understanding that those corrections could be made under the amendment process available under the regular procedure and the Democrats went in a completely different direction and went with a procedure that prevented those amendments to correct the bill then it's no wonder why they object to the "procedure" that was used.

-- Posted by McCook1 on Thu, Aug 5, 2010, at 5:30 PM

Lack of articulating their position? Their position was clear. Let's take care of those that tirelessly worked at Ground Zero. It was a straight up and down vote, which is all the Republicans complained about not getting the last time they were in charge. Now they get that chance and you blame the Democrats because they didn't articulate?

Seriously? You are trying to provide cover (in the words of Weiner) for Republicans voting no to cover those workers. It was a bad decision on the Republicans no matter which way you try to spin it.

But I imagine if the tables had been turned and the Democrats voted against the same bill under the same circumstances the Republicans did you would be screaming bloody murder.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Wed, Aug 4, 2010, at 5:44 PM

Mike,

Like I said earlier, I can't say what amendments they wanted because those specifics haven't really been put out there, that I've seen. However, I would have said I voted against it because of procedure because the procedure prevented those amendments and thus refused to allow much needed corrections to the bill. The mistake they made was that they assumed everyone knew what that different procedure meant. There greatest crime there is a lack of articulating their position.

Some things needed to be added and some I think needed to be taken out such as giving these benefits to anyone who worked in the disaster area for any 4 days during the 4 month period following the attacks and in some cases people who worked in the disaster area for 30 days in the time from the attacks until July 31, 2002 or anybody whose place of employment was in the disaster area from the date of the attacks until May 31, 2003 with no stipulation on how long they were there. Under that clause, you could get a job in the disaster area on May 29,2003 then get fired on May 30, 2003 and you would be eligible for funds under this program. That's opening the door to fraud, wide open. Why you would even put something like that in there is beyond me but it needed to be corrected. The guy working in Subway who had a respiratory problem before 9/11 and got a job in the disaster area in May of 2003 was just fine but this bill makes him eligible for benefits and he could get his pre-existing condition covered by taxpayers. With 9 years of work, I'd think the bill would have been written better than it was.

The $700 million has been offered to them. It's up to them to accept it. The only reason its not decided is because the plaintiffs haven't made a decision. I still think its ridiculous that the lawyers get 25% of that but that's how most lawyers are, they argue about all the wrongs that were done to these people and then turn around and take $175 million from their claim for "legal expenses".

-- Posted by McCook1 on Wed, Aug 4, 2010, at 5:09 PM

You know if those were the reasons they gave originally for voting against the bill then yes I would agree with you. But they said nothing about that from the beginning. Their complaint was simply about procedure. King, the co-sponsor, even said at the beginnning of his speech on the floor before the vote that he supported the bill before launching into his own tirade about Democrats turning this into political play.

At the end of the day the saying is still correct. If you believe it's right, you vote yes. You pass it. You put personal partisan politics aside and vote for what you support.

As for the suits. They have not been decided yet so to suggest that it is okay to fall back on them because they are expected to receive %700 million is a bit premature.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Wed, Aug 4, 2010, at 1:49 PM

Mike,

I was simply clarifying the reason why procedure was important. If it were me, I would have wanted an amendment that stated that these funds would only be available when the benefits currently available to them have been exhausted. Without that important amendment, you are reimbursing New York for the health insurance costs they are responsible for providing. The rescue workers are still covered under some of the best health insurance coverage out there along with their worker's compensation benefits. The only people who aren't receiving anything are the pedestrians who were in the vicinity and who did not have health insurance. They are now in a lawsuit to sue for damages and that lawsuit is expected to bring them around $700 million. When you're talking about handing out billions of dollars and the majority of it all goes to one municipality then there need to be very strong restrictions on the use of that money that were not in place. I can't speak for anyone else but that's why I would want amendments in the bill.

-- Posted by McCook1 on Wed, Aug 4, 2010, at 11:20 AM

I understand that McCook but it does not change the fact that they voted against a bill that they supported because of procedure. It still circles right around to that. Whether it is because of 2/3 vote which I readily admit I was wrong on or because they couldn't get amendments into the bill they denied sick people that can't get medical coverage simply because they didn't like the way a bill was going through.

So what you are saying is that you would rather a bill be weighed down with amendments that have nothing to do with the actual bill than the bill actually passing?

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Tue, Aug 3, 2010, at 9:38 PM

G.I.,

For most people, there's not an extra shift or two available and they have been tightening their belts already. A lot of people who work at a place providing 3 shifts have seen an entire shift eliminated along with the jobs that went with it. Of course, it's an odd theory that in a recession we would encourage people to spend less than they already are. Oh yeah, that'll provide a real boost to the economy. Unfortunately, it will boost it in the wrong direction.

Mike,

When they say they were against the procedure it's not simply because it required 2/3 vote. It's because of the no amendment stipulations that went with it. If Democrats had the votes as they say under the simple majority then there was no need to go to a 2/3 majority. So why would they make it harder to pass if they had it in the bag like they thought? It's just foolish.

-- Posted by McCook1 on Tue, Aug 3, 2010, at 3:56 PM

GI you have gone rogue. Ha that's funny but no you are absolutely correct.

Molly welcome to the site I hope it is a pleasurable experience for you.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Tue, Aug 3, 2010, at 11:24 AM

My point McCook is that this bill should have passed with 435 votes. The other point is if you have a problem with the procedure idea then blaming me is a little off base since it was the Republicans that made that point. They continually said that they were voting against the bill because of procedure.

Was it a political risk to force the vote as they did? Of course it was, but it was politically stupid for the Republicans to vote against it simply because they weren't happy with the procedure.

You can try to push the procedure argument off on me but I am only repeating the reasons Republicans gave for voting against the bill.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Tue, Aug 3, 2010, at 11:17 AM

Mike,

You're argument about procedure just doesn't make sense. If Dems had the votes with a procedure only needing a simple majority then why would they use a procedure requiring a 2/3 majority? Both ways would be an up or down yes or no vote. The 2/3 majority just prevents amendments.

Procedures are used for various reasons. This procedure prevents amendments but requires a 2/3 majority.

If they had the votes this is the epitome of stupidity or they really didn't want it to pass with Republican support.

-- Posted by McCook1 on Mon, Aug 2, 2010, at 12:19 AM

People, don't you realize, according to Mike, only Democrats are allowed to have strong feelings. If someone who isn't a Democrat or who Mike think's isn't a Democrat (yours truly among others) feels strongly and uses strong language, it is obviously the fake outrage that people who he doesn't agree with employ.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Sun, Aug 1, 2010, at 5:36 PM

A little more clarity on why the co-sponsor Republican King and nearly all Republicans voted against the bill. Procedure. That's it. That is why Weiner went on the the tirade he went on. Republicans were not voting against the bill because of hidden clauses or because (as I had originally though) because they couldn't add amendments. They voted against it because they didn't like the procedural way the Democrats were trying to pass it.

So in the end when Weiner said if you believe it's right you vote yes. Republicans were trying to make a point with their no votes and they voted (nearly) en masse against a bill they supported. There was nothing in this bill Republicans didn't like (or rather nothing they didn't bring up until after the vote) they just didn't like the procedure behind it. To me, personally, that's really pathetic.

McCook, they did have the votes that's the whole point. Not a single Republican opposed the bill as written they just didn't like the idea that the Democrats were forcing a up and down yes or no vote which is exactly what this was.

Was it, in the end, political grandstanding by both parties? Of course it was. But in the end it still holds true that the Republicans favored this bill but voted no on procedure that's it. That is the only reason they voted against it. Peter King said that originally.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Sat, Jul 31, 2010, at 1:18 PM

"They" is referring to some of the blog posts under the article I read.

5,000 was just an estimate but since I did not find the number of workers I fully disclosed that this was not the actual number of workers. I did find that the number is 10,000 so the amount paid to each worker would be $740,000. A very simple Blue Cross/Blue Shield policy will cover up to $10 million in benefits with a maximum yearly co-pay of $2,000-2,500. However, cities providing insurance coverage to firefighters are usually much better than any policy available to the publid. That does not factor in any benefits from worker's comp.

This is would do more to absorb New York's increased health insurance costs as opposed to actually providing the police and firefighters health insurance that they are not receiving. The other part is that not only rescue workers would receive these funds. People who were just there would also receive these funds too. They are currently in a lawsuit and were trying to decide whether to take the $713 million settlement (with 25% going to legal fees for the lawyers) or wait for money from taxpayers via Congress. Weiner knew he didn't have the votes for a 2/3 vote but he and other Democrats pushed it anyway because they didn't want Republican amendments to the bill that would be possible if they went to a simple majority vote. If they went with a simple majority vote then this bill would be passed. However, they were in a corner where they didn't want to pass whatever amendments Republicans would put in the bill but they couldn't vote against it and risk looking like they were voting against the bill. So, they went with the 2/3 majority requirement with no amendments by Republicans and voted yes knowing they didn't have the votes but still come out looking like they're trying to help. You should know that a bill doesn't linger for 9 years and go to a vote unless the people pushing it are certain they have enough votes. Sometimes, it's close and goes the other way but this wasn't even close which shows that they knew they didn't have the votes. Otherwise, they wouldn't have put it up until they could get more votes. It's the same old politics, nothing new there. They needed every democrat plus 27 Rebublicans and they didn't get half the Republicans needed and lost 4 Democrats. Don't think they didn't know what they were up against. These things always get polled, negotiated and resolved before a politician risks a vote on it. Then they put on their show and things come in very close to what they expected.

-- Posted by McCook1 on Fri, Jul 30, 2010, at 7:10 PM

I found the rant a bit one sided. If you vote Yes, then you have voted your heart, but if you vote No, then you have voted in stupidity, or hatred. If Liberals vote after thinking it is right, cannot Conservatives vote no after thinking about it, and deciding something is wrong enough not to vote yes, without being demonized?

I have not idea what caused the Conservative side to vote no, including one of the Conservative Sponsors, but I feel there may have been something, and perhaps we should be asking what.

-- Posted by Navyblue on Fri, Jul 30, 2010, at 6:55 PM

Okay since you admittedly said that you haven't done a lot of fact checking on this then who is this "they" you keep referring to.

I will assume for the moment that you are talking about the Republicans who are trying to scramble for a good reason for not voting to help those are sick. Republicans also somehow claim that this bill (actually every bill that has gone through Congress) is a jobs killer.

Yes nine years in the making. It's interesting though what some call passion others call tantrums. But leave it to a Republican to continually attempt to interrupt. I wonder why they wanted to stop him so badly.

If you don't have numbers yet then why arbitrarily say 5,000 or are you just trying to justify why you think it is good idea to make these people who worked days on end looking for survivors that have already gone broke because of their illnesses keep trying to find a way to pay for it themselves?

Let's talk about control of both houses for a second. When you are forced to vote on bills or clotures or filibusters that require 2/3 vote control(majority) doesn't mean squat when the entire other party votes no en masse every single time and you know that McCook. That is a shoddy argument that holds no water at all. Even if the four Democrats had voted for the bill they still would have fallen short of the 2/3. So let's just leave that argument for someone else. If you are talking about straight majority votes then yes you can then talk about control and bills not passing. Not here though.

But in the end all you are really saying is that you haven't fact checked all of it but you are going to go ahead and list what you have heard as fact. Nice.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Fri, Jul 30, 2010, at 5:45 PM

I saw this poor show of acting. 9 years in the making, eh? Democrats have had control of both houses for 4 of the past 9 years. I saw this earlier today and came to the conclusion that his mom should receive some kind of award. If this is the kind of tantrum he throws as a grown man in Congress, just imagine how bad it was for her when he was 2. That's assuming it's not fake like the Boehner example you used.

Since I just saw the story earlier today there is still some fact checking to do but they are saying that there was a provision in here for unionizing all volunteer fire departments too. They're also saying it paid $7.4 Billion over 10 years. Which is a very high number. If there were say, 5,000 workers (don't have actual number yet) to be paid then each one would receive $1,480,000 and that's in addition to their worker's comp and regular insurance that has a premium which is primarily paid by their employers.

-- Posted by McCook1 on Fri, Jul 30, 2010, at 5:25 PM


Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration. If you already have an account, enter your username and password below. Otherwise, click here to register.

Username:

Password:  (Forgot your password?)

Your comments:
Please be respectful of others and try to stay on topic.


And Now for Something Completely Different
Michael Hendricks
Recent posts
Archives
Blog RSS feed [Feed icon]
Comments RSS feed [Feed icon]
Login
Hot topics
Hodgepodgeiness
(262 ~ 6:55 AM, Jan 8)

Elections Matter
(13 ~ 3:31 PM, Dec 22)

It Begins ... Again
(24 ~ 11:41 PM, Oct 27)

Keep Them Close
(6 ~ 1:08 PM, Oct 17)

I .... Disagree
(10 ~ 11:33 PM, Sep 30)