Jon Stewart Ashamed of US Congress

[Great Minarchistan]

I assume the government already offers provisions for this? It's not like 9/11 was the first incident where firefighters got into collapsed buildings to save people.

If it did then Jon Stewart would never have had to make his speech.

So what makes the 9/11 responders distinct from ordinary firefighters saving hundreds/thousands of Americans from collapsed buildings every year, exposing themselves to the same health risks presented? As patriotic as their act was, they were simply doing their own job and it shouldn't serve as a leverage to obtain privileges at the expense of taxpayers.

[Aclion]

If it did then Jon Stewart would never have had to make his speech.

So what makes the 9/11 responders distinct from ordinary firefighters saving hundreds/thousands of Americans from collapsed buildings every year, exposing themselves to the same health risks presented? As patriotic as their act was, they were simply doing their own job and it shouldn't serve as a leverage to obtain privileges at the expense of taxpayers.

The fact that they were responding to the most serious attack on this nation since Pearl Harbor.

Also congrats on being the first person to actually oppose the bill. If you were in congress the OP would have a veneer of legitimacy.

[Great Minarchistan]

So what makes the 9/11 responders distinct from ordinary firefighters saving hundreds/thousands of Americans from collapsed buildings every year, exposing themselves to the same health risks presented? As patriotic as their act was, they were simply doing their own job and it shouldn't serve as a leverage to obtain privileges at the expense of taxpayers.

The fact that they were responding to the most serious attack on this nation since Pearl Harbor.

Also congrats on being the first person to actually oppose the bill. If you were in congress the OP would have a veneer of legitimacy.

And it doesn't actually matter...? They are ordinary firefighters which were doing their job, it's no different from the other thousands of firefighters out in the country risking their lives to protect citizens from collapsed buildings. It's a noble profession, but piggybacking on taxpayers because you happened to participate in a large disaster while none of your peers did simply makes you an opportunistic leech.

[Fartsniffage]

The fact that they were responding to the most serious attack on this nation since Pearl Harbor.

Also congrats on being the first person to actually oppose the bill. If you were in congress the OP would have a veneer of legitimacy.

And it doesn't actually matter...? They are ordinary firefighters which were doing their job, it's no different from the other thousands of firefighters out in the country risking their lives to protect citizens from collapsed buildings. It's a noble profession, but piggybacking on taxpayers because you happened to participate in a large disaster while none of your peers did simply makes you an opportunistic leech.

Not really. The rest of first responders should also be getting life long healthcare. Maybe this can be a first step.

[Shofercia]

I assume you think the VA should be dissolved too?

I assume the government already offers provisions for this? It's not like 9/11 was the first incident where firefighters got into collapsed buildings to save people.

Not on that kind of scale. This was a national emergency, whereas firefighters and cops in US are locally trained and funded, to handle local emergency. They're not the FEMA of cops and firefighters.

If it did then Jon Stewart would never have had to make his speech.

So what makes the 9/11 responders distinct from ordinary firefighters saving hundreds/thousands of Americans from collapsed buildings every year, exposing themselves to the same health risks presented? As patriotic as their act was, they were simply doing their own job and it shouldn't serve as a leverage to obtain privileges at the expense of taxpayers.

The sheer scale of the event. Part of their job is to assess the damage, and they were untrained to make that kind of assessment, so they could've just cordoned off the area, localized the fire, let the people die, and chillax. No health issues would've resulted from it.

[Great Minarchistan]

And it doesn't actually matter...? They are ordinary firefighters which were doing their job, it's no different from the other thousands of firefighters out in the country risking their lives to protect citizens from collapsed buildings. It's a noble profession, but piggybacking on taxpayers because you happened to participate in a large disaster while none of your peers did simply makes you an opportunistic leech.

Not really. The rest of first responders should also be getting life long healthcare. Maybe this can be a first step.

Way to be a "first step" by egotistically asking for treatment for you and the persons which happened to stay with you in the 9/11 site...

I also suppose that the government already offers benefits for firefighters since it consists of a profession where risk exposure is frequent.

[Cedoria]

Who cares what some liberal comedian wants? Fact is, I don't see US healthcare changing until or when that system collapses. Like government healthcare is going to solve anything asides from changing who pays for it (which will significantly increase taxes), and maybe making it so prices aren't inflated out of thin air, but have some relation to reality.

Doesn't the US already spend more tax money per capita on healthcare than any other nation? Surely then a proper universal healthcare system, like you said with lower prices, would save money?

Careful Vass, that's a little too much sense for the healthcare debate:)

That said, Stewart is right, but healthcare should also be a general right, not just a reward for heroism. If Congress did this much hand-wringing over billions spent on useless wars, we'd all benefit.

[Fartsniffage]

Not really. The rest of first responders should also be getting life long healthcare. Maybe this can be a first step.

Way to be a "first step" by egotistically asking for treatment for you and the persons which happened to stay with you in the 9/11 site...

I also suppose that the government already offers benefits for firefighters since it consists of a profession where risk exposure is frequent.

Someone has to start the ball rolling. Rosa Parks was asking for special treatment when she refused to move. The whole thing seemed to work out in the end.

[Great Minarchistan]

Not on that kind of scale. This was a national emergency, whereas firefighters and cops in US are locally trained and funded, to handle local emergency. They're not the FEMA of cops and firefighters.

How does the collapse of the twin towers differ fundamentally from the collapse of, say, the Willis Tower had it not been caused by a terrorist attack?

The sheer scale of the event. Part of their job is to assess the damage, and they were untrained to make that kind of assessment, so they could've just cordoned off the area, localized the fire, let the people die, and chillax. No health issues would've resulted from it.

They're supposed to assess the damage of the site but they were untrained to do so...?

[Bombadil]

The fact that they were responding to the most serious attack on this nation since Pearl Harbor.

Also congrats on being the first person to actually oppose the bill. If you were in congress the OP would have a veneer of legitimacy.

And it doesn't actually matter...? They are ordinary firefighters which were doing their job, it's no different from the other thousands of firefighters out in the country risking their lives to protect citizens from collapsed buildings. It's a noble profession, but piggybacking on taxpayers because you happened to participate in a large disaster while none of your peers did simply makes you an opportunistic leech.

There's a slight difference, they worked breathing in noxious air despite officials telling them it was safe. Many are now suffering from cancer and respiratory problems.

But first responders who spent weeks at the site breathing in noxious air clouded with debris from the collapsed buildings -- after New York and federal officials told them it was safe -- have since found debilitating illnesses and cancers festering in their bodies.

And..

In July of 2011, it had identified just more than 56,000 first responders, volunteers and others with health problems stemming from 9/11. By March of 2019, that number had risen to more than 95,000, with roughly 500 to 900 new cases being identified each month. The program has identified 2,355 deaths associated with 9/11-related health problems. That's nearly as many as died at the World Trade Center because of the crashes.

Chronic and debilitating problems with sinuses, reflux and asthma are the most-diagnosed ailments, but as of May, more than 12,500 cases of cancer had also been diagnosed.

Link

[Great Minarchistan]

Who cares what some liberal comedian wants? Fact is, I don't see US healthcare changing until or when that system collapses. Like government healthcare is going to solve anything asides from changing who pays for it (which will significantly increase taxes), and maybe making it so prices aren't inflated out of thin air, but have some relation to reality.

Doesn't the US already spend more tax money per capita on healthcare than any other nation? Surely then a proper universal healthcare system, like you said with lower prices, would save money?

Not quite. The major push of American healthcare prices are medical unions, which constrain supply of professionals to jack up wages of medical staff to incredibly high levels. When you look at the net margins of the healthcare sector only pharma has a high profitability, with hospitals and insurance companies falling behind.

[Cedoria]

How's that?

Well over half of medical research is performed for profit in America.

Americans typically get better treatment than elsewhere, which accounts for some of the cost, but the real price jack is the fact that other nations refuse to allow pharmaceutical companies to make a profit out of a misguided belief that they should just do it for free.

They steal American Medicine, then have the gal to tell us their healthcare is better, when typically it's not only worse, but it's cheaper because they've literally robbed us for it.

That's the dumbest rant I'Ve ever heard.

That said, I'll plead guilty to the latter, I do think that medical research should be done for public good not private profit.

[Great Minarchistan]

And it doesn't actually matter...? They are ordinary firefighters which were doing their job, it's no different from the other thousands of firefighters out in the country risking their lives to protect citizens from collapsed buildings. It's a noble profession, but piggybacking on taxpayers because you happened to participate in a large disaster while none of your peers did simply makes you an opportunistic leech.

There's a slight difference, they worked breathing in noxious air despite officials telling them it was safe. Many are now suffering from cancer and respiratory problems.

But first responders who spent weeks at the site breathing in noxious air clouded with debris from the collapsed buildings -- after New York and federal officials told them it was safe -- have since found debilitating illnesses and cancers festering in their bodies.

And..

In July of 2011, it had identified just more than 56,000 first responders, volunteers and others with health problems stemming from 9/11. By March of 2019, that number had risen to more than 95,000, with roughly 500 to 900 new cases being identified each month. The program has identified 2,355 deaths associated with 9/11-related health problems. That's nearly as many as died at the World Trade Center because of the crashes.

Chronic and debilitating problems with sinuses, reflux and asthma are the most-diagnosed ailments, but as of May, more than 12,500 cases of cancer had also been diagnosed.

Link

So they weren't exposed to the toxic gases without proper protection not within the day of the accident, rather over weeks?

[Shofercia]

Not on that kind of scale. This was a national emergency, whereas firefighters and cops in US are locally trained and funded, to handle local emergency. They're not the FEMA of cops and firefighters.

How does the collapse of the twin towers differ fundamentally from the collapse of, say, the Willis Tower had it not been caused by a terrorist attack?

The sheer scale of the event. Part of their job is to assess the damage, and they were untrained to make that kind of assessment, so they could've just cordoned off the area, localized the fire, let the people die, and chillax. No health issues would've resulted from it.

They're supposed to assess the damage of the site but they were untrained to do so...?

Generally speaking, we have those things called fire inspections, where big towers are inspected, and a response plan is written, with almost every possible eventuality taken into account. Apparently flying huge passenger planes into buildings was not one of the eventualities. A building that collapses due to demolition is different from a building that collapses due to earthquake.

The responses to each collapse would be different. Most of your training for a demolition collapse can be useless during an earthquake collapse. They weren't supposed to assess the damage due to planes hitting buildings and buildings collapsing as a result, until it actually happened. Thus they weren't trained for it.

[Shofercia]

There's a slight difference, they worked breathing in noxious air despite officials telling them it was safe. Many are now suffering from cancer and respiratory problems.

But first responders who spent weeks at the site breathing in noxious air clouded with debris from the collapsed buildings -- after New York and federal officials told them it was safe -- have since found debilitating illnesses and cancers festering in their bodies.

And..

In July of 2011, it had identified just more than 56,000 first responders, volunteers and others with health problems stemming from 9/11. By March of 2019, that number had risen to more than 95,000, with roughly 500 to 900 new cases being identified each month. The program has identified 2,355 deaths associated with 9/11-related health problems. That's nearly as many as died at the World Trade Center because of the crashes.

Chronic and debilitating problems with sinuses, reflux and asthma are the most-diagnosed ailments, but as of May, more than 12,500 cases of cancer had also been diagnosed.

Link

So they weren't exposed to the toxic gases without proper protection not within the day of the accident, rather over weeks?

Fairly certain that they were exposed on the first day, and the weeks simply compounded the effects.

[Great Minarchistan]

That's the dumbest rant I'Ve ever heard.

He isn't wrong though. Besides, medical costs really skyrocket over the last years of life in the US -- while some public healthcare systems in Europe even start getting more strict when handing treatment to extremely old people IIRC.

[Cedoria]

That's the dumbest rant I'Ve ever heard.

He isn't wrong though. Besides, medical costs really skyrocket over the last years of life in the US -- while some public healthcare systems in Europe even start getting more strict when handing treatment to extremely old people IIRC.

That doesn't add up to theft of American medicines.

[Fartsniffage]

That's the dumbest rant I'Ve ever heard.

He isn't wrong though. Besides, medical costs really skyrocket over the last years of life in the US -- while some public healthcare systems in Europe even start getting more strict when handing treatment to extremely old people IIRC.

My god you're full of shit.

[Great Minarchistan]

Generally speaking, we have those things called fire inspections, where big towers are inspected, and a response plan is written, with almost every possible eventuality taken into account. Apparently flying huge passenger planes into buildings was not one of the eventualities. A building that collapses due to demolition is different from a building that collapses due to earthquake.

Quite interesting since NYC is as far as possible from tectonic activity and near geological faults have been inactive for millions of years, ergo it's nonsensical to prioritize training in case of an earthquake collapse over a collapse caused by an eventual fire.

The responses to each collapse would be different. Most of your training for a demolition collapse can be useless during an earthquake collapse. They weren't supposed to assess the damage due to planes hitting buildings and buildings collapsing as a result, until it actually happened. Thus they weren't trained for it.

Rather skeptical that NYC firefighters prioritized training in case of an earthquake, but I'll take your word. It's an immense fuckup regardless.

[Great Minarchistan]

He isn't wrong though. Besides, medical costs really skyrocket over the last years of life in the US -- while some public healthcare systems in Europe even start getting more strict when handing treatment to extremely old people IIRC.

That doesn't add up to theft of American medicines.

Define "theft"

[Great Minarchistan]

He isn't wrong though. Besides, medical costs really skyrocket over the last years of life in the US -- while some public healthcare systems in Europe even start getting more strict when handing treatment to extremely old people IIRC.

My god you're full of shit.

Doesn't NHS restrict treatments like surgeries if you're old enough, for one?

[Fartsniffage]

My god you're full of shit.

Doesn't NHS restrict treatments like surgeries if you're old enough, for one?

No.

[Great Minarchistan]

Doesn't NHS restrict treatments like surgeries if you're old enough, for one?

No.

Fair enough, the effect is also present in there

[Aclion]

He isn't wrong though. Besides, medical costs really skyrocket over the last years of life in the US -- while some public healthcare systems in Europe even start getting more strict when handing treatment to extremely old people IIRC.

That doesn't add up to theft of American medicines.

They're not stealing the medicine, they're stealing the research, by setting prices based on only the cost of producing the medical once it goes to market. Because of this, the cost of developing the medicine is not distributed fairly, but instead carried by those nations which do not do this.

[Fartsniffage]

No.

Fair enough, the effect is also present in there

What are you trying to say? Be specific.