9/11 worker's health care bill: why?

[Machine_Elf]

This may end up in GD, but for now, I’m looking for factual answers regarding historical precedents that may be used to either justify or refute a policy position.

An aid package was recently passed by congress for the 9/11 rescue and cleanup workers who have suffered long-term, debilitating health effects related to exposure to hazardous materials during their work at the ground zero site in New York city.

What is unusual about their case that has resulted in such controversy?

Do public servants in other situations (e.g. any individual firefighter or police officer in any other city who suffers similar problems owing to a non-9/11 event) receive financial/health-care assistance that that the 9/11 workers had not received before the passage of this bill?

If so, then why haven’t injured 9/11 workers received those same benefits?

If not, then why are injured 9/11 workers meriting a disparate level of support?

[ZipperJJ]

They do receive health care from their employers but like most health care, it’s not 100% paid for. Remember, a lot of the people in the US going bankrupt from medical bills are not unemployed people with no insurance. They are people with insurance that is not covering them well enough.

From what I’ve heard, one of the biggest problems is that “the government” (I assume the federal government) said “It’s ok to go down there and breathe the air” so the responders went down there…and it wasn’t ok to breathe the air.

So now you have all of these first responders with not just your typical house fire lung issues (which their equipment protects them from anyway) but with some serious chemical and debris inhalation issues that they may have avoided if the government didn’t say “it’s ok to go down there.”

Remember, there was a lot of jet fuel burning going on there. If a jet fuel plant blew up, there would be first responders there simply containing the fire from the outside and waiting until it was safe. They would not be rushing into the jet fuel factory. In this case, they did.

[toadspittle]

Don’t have cites handy, but I believe one of the problems the workers are facing is that many of their conditions have been classified by their existing insurers as “preexisting” or “non-work-related.” In other words, the workers are saying that they have massively reduced lung function or cancer due to all of the toxic dust they inhaled during the cleanup, but the insurance companies who currently cover them are saying, well, can you prove that you got this from 9/11…?

[toadspittle]

Here’s the 9/11 workers’ web site, with their claims:

…Now, more than nine years after the disaster, huge numbers of First Responders, plus their fellow exposed New Yorkers are grievously ill. Afflictions range from chronic bronchial disease to asbestosis, leukemia and cancers, plus a host of other diseases including systemic organ failure for which the etiology remains unidentified. As of June 2010, 836 WTC workers have died; an estimated 70% of the 70,000-plus First Responders have declared illnesses; it is estimated by the World Trade Center Health Registry that 410,000 people have been ‘heavily exposed’ to WTC toxins (includes Responders), and may become seriously ill in the future.

Relief for victims has not been on a par with the magnitude of the crisis. Jobs have been lost, pensions denied, families destroyed and bankrupted. Medical care is routinely denied due to lack of health insurance, lack of proof of 9/11 involvement, or–if offered–is frequently insufficient given the gravity of the illnesses, some of which confound medical experts. In spite of official assurances that the 9/11 Health Crisis is being adequately addressed, medical centers with WTC-illness clinics such as Mt Sinai, Belleview, and Queens College have been more involved with collecting data and monitoring, as opposed to offering actual treatments.

Federal response has been inadequate at best. The sole major relief fund to date, the 9/11 Victim Compensation Fund, was designed to provide compensation to the families of individuals who perished or were injured on the day of or immediately following the attacks. In spite of the fund’s existence, it has provided relief to only a small fraction of the total number of victims. It has also been criticized because:

•It excluded First Responders who arrived later than 96 hours after the attacks. This is clearly insufficient, given that the recovery and cleanup of Ground Zero and related sites was over a period of nine months, involving tens of thousands of individuals.

•The fund excluded all individuals who became ill later than the designated December 22, 2003 filing date, and is thus useless to victims whose 9/11 illnesses have a gestation time beyond the 12.22.03 deadline.

•The fund provided no compensation for the over 300,000 residents, workers and students of Lower Manhattan, Brooklyn, and the adjacent areas who were exposed to toxins in their residences, jobsites or schools.

•The fund obliged victims to sign waivers forfeiting their rights to file lawsuits against the airlines or government if fund money is collected.

[UltraVires]

I was wondering the same thing. Doesn’t workers comp pay 100% for any on the job injury? They wouldn’t even need to use their own health insurance that they already had.

[Ravenman]

From time to time, Congress has determined that certain illnesses should be treated differently in terms of compensation or availability of health care. It is hard to say for certain what types of diseases make the cut for special compensation and which don’t, but the reasons tend to be to mitigate government liability or simplify a potentially complex and lengthy claims process. Examples include Agent Orange exposure, asbestos related diseases, and black lung. Each of those programs operates fairly differently. So, in that context, a 9-11 compensation fund isn’t uncharted territory.

[anson2995]

@jtgain

I was wondering the same thing. Doesn’t workers comp pay 100% for any on the job injury? They wouldn’t even need to use their own health insurance that they already had.

No.

Many of those affected were volunteers whose claims were denied because their “on-the-job” status was denied (including some NYPD officers).

Insurers have also denied coverage for cases of lung cancer and other respiratory ailments, disputing the link to toxins at the ground zero site.

[spenczar]

@jtgain

I was wondering the same thing. Doesn’t workers comp pay 100% for any on the job injury? They wouldn’t even need to use their own health insurance that they already had.

The government is fighting all the workman’s comp. claims, arguing that throat and lung cancers were preexisting conditions in pretty much all cases. That fight has brought some heavy legal expenses to all parties. Meanwhile, the first responders still have had to pay for cancer treatment for years, which ain’t cheap, and have accumulated some pretty incredible amounts of debt fighting both cancer and their own government.

[WreckingCrew]

Not to sound like a completely Machiavellian bastard, but one of the things that really pisses me off about this bill was that instead of using a lot of political capital to make these people a special class worthy of getting federal funding, they could have been used as the poster children for genuine health care reform. Then some actual widespread good might have come out of their suffering, rather than just throwing a huge gob of money at a specific problem.

[ZipperJJ]

@WreckingCrew

Not to sound like a completely Machiavellian bastard, but one of the things that really pisses me off about this bill was that instead of using a lot of political capital to make these people a special class worthy of getting federal funding, they could have been used as the poster children for genuine health care reform. Then some actual widespread good might have come out of their suffering, rather than just throwing a huge gob of money at a specific problem.

Michael Moore used them in his movie Sicko. I wonder if that rendered them untouchable as poster children?

[boytyperanma]

@spenczar

The government is fighting all the workman’s comp. claims, arguing that throat and lung cancers were preexisting conditions in pretty much all cases.

The governments doing that? Cite?

Last I checked denial of insurance claims was the realm of our terrible private sector healthcare system.

[Chefguy]

@boytyperanma

The governments doing that? Cite?

Last I checked denial of insurance claims was the realm of our terrible private sector healthcare system.

It’s not just their realm, it’s their sole goal in life. Well, that and maximizing profits.

[anson2995]

@boytyperanma

The governments doing that? Cite?

Last I checked denial of insurance claims was the realm of our terrible private sector healthcare system.

Forty percent of the claimants don’t have health insurance. (cite)

Workers comp claims are being fought by the city of New York. (Here’s one cite, it’s not hard to find more.)

But the broader issue is that programs were set up by the federal government to cover claims of 9/11 responders, and insurers point to their existence in denying claims. And the funds themselves fight many of the claims. From CBS News:

Two funds established in the wake of 9/11 have come to epitomize the responders’ frustration. Sick workers say the Victim’s Compensation Fund failed to adequately cover them and the initial deadline to enroll expired in 2003 - well before some of the most serious diseases began to manifest themselves. Meanwhile the Captive Insurance Fund, set up to reimburse injured World Trade center workers, has consistently fought claims by ill first responders.

[El_Zagna]

Is there, in fact, any real data indicating that first responders have developed certain diseases at a rate outside the normal range. I admire these folks as much as anyone, and I think they deserve to be compensated for any illnesses associated with 9/11, but there needs to be some hard data backing up the claims. If this is just another vaccines-lead-to-autism or saccharin-leads-to-brain-cancer claim, then it’s a different case altogether.

[Captain_Carrot]

70% of them have respiratory problems. Pretty sure that’s out of the ordinary.

[What_the]

I think their unions should be held responsible.

[Sailboat]

I recall the EPA announcing very soon after the towers fell that the air quality was safe, and at the time, I thought, “how can they say that, legitimately?” My mistake, of course, was in that last word.

[Ace309]

@What_the

I think their unions should be held responsible.

For any particular reason? Not challenging, just legitimately curious.

[notsoheavyd3]

@Captain_Carrot

70% of them have respiratory problems. Pretty sure that’s out of the ordinary.

Umm, I think you mean there’s a 70% greater chance of having respiratory problems as compared to the general population.

[Hello_Again]

@El_Zagna

Is there, in fact, any real data indicating that first responders have developed certain diseases at a rate outside the normal range. I admire these folks as much as anyone, and I think they deserve to be compensated for any illnesses associated with 9/11, but there needs to be some hard data backing up the claims. If this is just another vaccines-lead-to-autism or saccharin-leads-to-brain-cancer claim, then it’s a different case altogether.

What We Know Abou the Health Effects of 9/11 from nyc.gov. Goes through the studies, the monitoring programs, preliminary conclusions, questions still to be answered, etc.