If I’d meant that, I would have said it. What I heard was that 70% of them, as in seven of every ten, have respiratory issues.
Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome. Nice. A disease with no way of verification looking for money. I’m pretty sure I’ve got it too.
I can see extending the premium on insurance payments for 10 years but just throwing money at every potential resident of NY is vague and unprecedented. The last weather crisis we had I hurt my back voluntarily cutting trees with a chainsaw. Give me money. :dubious:
Fine, cite please. (Since I seriously doubt that number is correct.)
PTSD has diagnostic criteria that experts can evaluate. Even knowing the criteria, it is quite difficult to fake.
And your cutting of a tree was not performing a service to victims of a national tragedy. Part of the government’s job is to protect its people from malicious invaders. When it fails in that duty, it has to pay for the damages, just like anyone else. Is not restitution a conservative value?
Of course it has diagnostic criteria and you’ll have to cite that it can’t be faked.
Actually, cutting down trees after a storm is every bit a service to victims of a national tragedy. The government is responsible for keeping roads open and functional. I just mentioned that to show how futile it is to ask for money every time something bad happens.
As far as the government being liable for not protecting it’s citizens I’ll ask for a cite for that starting with every war we’ve ever had and every person shot by a criminal.
Now if you want to take a different approach and say that the EPA was wrong about the air quality and inspectors didn’t properly monitor worker safety then that would be a legitimate claim.
It’s based on a study done four years ago by Mount Sinai Medical Center. And yes, they found that 70 percent of the 9,500 people tested at the medical center had respiratory problems. That page has a link to the study, but the link doesn’t work. I’m trying to find a new one.
Indeed, you should get money, or at any rate, your medical expenses ought to be paid.
In just about every other every other first world country medical expenses occasioned by that injury, or any other, would be covered. It is only in America that situations like that of the 9/11 responders can even become an issue. Elsewhere, special provisions do not need to be made for “heroes,” because even non-heroes - even poor non-heroes - get the medical treatment they need.
Thank you for not hammering me. Rather than just being provocative I should have been more clear.
I don’t have a problem with legislation that takes care of the health issues of first responders in this case. By first responders I mean fire, police and other emergency crews.
I do have a problem with lumping clean-up crews in with the above. Their unions should be partially responsible at least. They should have been more concerned with health issues, regardless of what government experts might have claimed.
And to be more clear, part of my problem is the motivation and the tactics of the politicians who were pushing this legislation.
Given that their unions could have been more concerned, why should they be paying? Shouldn’t it be their employers paying? And failing that, the government that contracted those employers to do the work?
Thanks for that Marley. Looking at it quickly it did tell me the one thing I actually wanted to know, how do they compare to the general population. (Ans. twice as common as general. You’ve got to admit, without context it’s hard to know what that percentage means.)
What are unions for these days anyway? I mean other than getting more money and benefits for their members and keeping non-union workers away from their jobs.