# Conservatives Overwhelmingly Oppose Healthcare for 9/11 Workers **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [August 1, 2010, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatives-overwhelmingly-oppose-healthcare-for-9-11-workers/548816 "2010-08-01T20:05:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 13
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2010, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatives-overwhelmingly-oppose-healthcare-for-9-11-workers/548816/241 "2010-08-05T19:14:59Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Then let me tell you what does: an actual resolution, disapproving the war. > > Anything else is not the UN disapproving the war. > > Maybe France would have gone through with it. maybe not – maybe we could have sent over a few cases of Jerry Lewis DVDs and smoothed the whole thing out. Doesn’t matter. > > You cannot say “The UN disapproved the war,” and when called on it, mumble something about how they would have, if only. [Here is the Wikipedia article on the proposed resolution approving the war.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_and_the_Iraq_War) > [@](#): > > Unaccepted resolution > > In February 24, 2003, the US, the UK and Spain presented a draft resolution to the Security Council which declared that Iraq has failed to take the final opportunity afforded to it resolution 1441.[3] The resolution split the UN and led to serious diplomatic rifts, with the US and the UK coming under sustained criticism from France, Russia, and Germany. The resolution was eventually withdrawn, with the sponsors contending that it had been sabotaged by France’s threat to veto the new resolution “whatever the circumstances”, while critics of the resolution (and France itself) argued that the French position had been intentionally misrepresented and that the majority of the Security Council had opposed the proposed resolution. The article goes on to give the position of each SC member on it. Only four countries on the SC (US, UK, Spain and Bulgaria). China, Russia and France were opposed, so Bush did not even have a majority of members with veto power. Many members supported continued inspections but did not take a position on military action, however the position of France that the resolution would not have received a majority seems plausible. There would certainly be a diplomatic advantage of majority support for the resolution on the SC, even if vetoed. I’m sure the Bush administration would have not trouble in claiming that the world supported the invasion, but approval was blocked by the French surrender monkeys. Polls at the time indicated that the American public supported an invasion with approval. Of course most fell into place once our soldiers were put at risk. So, there appears to have been de facto disapproval by the SC, and the fact that the Bush Administration was not so clueless as to force a vote in no way refutes this. If Representative X wants to introduce a bill in Congress legalizing marriage to horses, but finds that it would not get a majority, does that mean we cannot say Congress disapproves of horse marriage? Or would you insist on a vote specifically disapproving it. How about if Rep. X were chairman of Ways and Means? Perhaps you will be honest enough to admit that if the resolution had been introduced it would fail, or will you continue to pretend that there was support? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2010, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatives-overwhelmingly-oppose-healthcare-for-9-11-workers/548816/242 "2010-08-05T20:04:56Z")
There was support! You can’t go around saying there was no support, because there was! Some! ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2010, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatives-overwhelmingly-oppose-healthcare-for-9-11-workers/548816/243 "2010-08-05T22:15:46Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > There was support! You can’t go around saying there was no support, because there was! Some! I’d never say there was no support. Remember the Coalition of the Shilling ^h^h^h Willing? ---
**Author:** ![crowmanyclouds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crowmanyclouds/32/19884_2.png) [@crowmanyclouds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crowmanyclouds)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2010, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatives-overwhelmingly-oppose-healthcare-for-9-11-workers/548816/244 "2010-08-05T22:31:09Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > … 2. 9/11 workers are not better or more deserving than, say, longshoreman who may injure themselves for life on the job, or truckers who ruin their backs, or coal miners their lungs. Why are demolition, construction, and others better or more deserving than everybody else who does the exact same job but just didn’t happen to do it at the WTC site? > > 1. Why is somebody who develops chronic lung disease who happened to be in NYC on 9/11 better than somebody else with the same disease who is in LA? Oh, I don’t know, maybe because, > [@Video of US Rep. Weiner ripping Repubs on 9/11 Bill](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/video-of-us-rep-weiner-ripping-repubs-on-9-11-bill/548617/37): > > > [@Video of US Rep. Weiner ripping Repubs on 9/11 Bill](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/video-of-us-rep-weiner-ripping-repubs-on-9-11-bill/548617/37): > > > > Who were the construction workers working for? You have insurance through your employer. They weren’t working for anyone. They just came. And when some people paused for a moment and asked “Is is it safe to work here? Is this stuff toxic?” The federal government came in and said “We tested the air and it is fine.” And it wasn’t fine. I’m gonna let Jon Stewart have the privilege of killing this thread\*, [August 4, 2010: I Give Up - 9/11 Responders Bill](http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-august-4-2010/i-give-up---9-11-responders-bill). CMC fnord! \*Not that it actually has even the slightest of killing the thread, despite the clip spelling out exactly what was up and just how slimy the Republicans were being. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2010, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatives-overwhelmingly-oppose-healthcare-for-9-11-workers/548816/245 "2010-08-05T23:17:55Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > If Representative X wants to introduce a bill in Congress legalizing marriage to horses, but finds that it would not get a majority, does that mean we cannot say Congress disapproves of horse marriage? No. We (if we were honest) could say only that Congress has not approved horse marriage. > [@](#): > > Or would you insist on a vote specifically disapproving it. How about if Rep. X were chairman of Ways and Means? This is bizarre. A vote failing to approve it would be perfectly sufficient. > [@](#): > > Perhaps you will be honest enough to admit that if the resolution had been introduced it would fail, or will you continue to pretend that there was support? Assuming France was telling the truth… yes, if I had to guess, I’d say the resolution would likely have failed. Because, you see, I don’t make shit up. Under your interpretation, I could say, “The Senate disapproves of President Obama’s handling of the gulf oil spill.” “What? Why?” you ask. “Because,” I confidently reply, “If Senator Reid introduced a resolution saying they approved of it, I know for a fact that resolution would fail. Therefore, they disapproved of it.” Doesn’t quite work, does it? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2010, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatives-overwhelmingly-oppose-healthcare-for-9-11-workers/548816/246 "2010-08-05T23:19:48Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > > [@Bricker](#): > > > > As to your second question: why do you assume there was no cost/benefit analysis. There was one: just not one in which you agreed with the weighting of the factors. The benefit of regime change in Iraq and protection of ourselves and our allies from potential attack was given great weight, and the cost to accomplish this task seemed acceptable. Obviously you don’t agree… but that’s not the same as claiming it didn’t exist. > > You got a cite for that analysis being done before the attack? Sure. Karl Rove’s book “Courage and Consequence.” He describes these kind of discussions n some detail. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2010, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatives-overwhelmingly-oppose-healthcare-for-9-11-workers/548816/247 "2010-08-05T23:49:55Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > 1. You can’t be compassionate with somebody else’s money. You can only be compassionate with your money and effort. It’s not about compassion. Compassion is just a feeling. It’s about obligation. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2010, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatives-overwhelmingly-oppose-healthcare-for-9-11-workers/548816/248 "2010-08-06T00:50:54Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > > [@Scylla](#): > > > > 1. You can’t be compassionate with somebody else’s money. You can only be compassionate with your money and effort. > > It’s not about compassion. Compassion is just a feeling. It’s about obligation. Ok. So why are we more obligated to those folks then everybody else? ---
**Author:** ![Jack\_Batty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jack_batty/32/3201_2.png) [@Jack\_Batty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_Batty)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2010, 12:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatives-overwhelmingly-oppose-healthcare-for-9-11-workers/548816/249 "2010-08-06T00:54:47Z")
Unbelievable. Eight years ago if a 9/11 first responder found two fortunes in his fortune cookie, it was proof enough for beatification. Now apparently they’re shit. ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2010, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatives-overwhelmingly-oppose-healthcare-for-9-11-workers/548816/250 "2010-08-06T00:57:03Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > Why is it stupid? > > 1. You can’t be compassionate with somebody else’s money. You can only be compassionate with your money and effort. It’s not somebody else’s money. Once the money is in government coffers, it’s the government’s money. > [@](#): > > 9/11 workers are not better or more deserving than, say, longshoreman who may injure themselves for life on the job, or truckers who ruin their backs, or coal miners their lungs. Why are demolition, construction, and others better or more deserving than everybody else who does the exact same job but just didn’t happen to do it at the WTC site? > > 1. Why is somebody who develops chronic lung disease who happened to be in NYC on 9/11 better than somebody else with the same disease who is in LA? Thank you for supporting Universal Healthcare! ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2010, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatives-overwhelmingly-oppose-healthcare-for-9-11-workers/548816/251 "2010-08-06T00:58:03Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > > [@foolsguinea](#): > > > > It’s not about compassion. Compassion is just a feeling. It’s about obligation. > > Ok. So why are we more obligated to those folks then everybody else? Because they were hired to clean up an area, and were made sick because of it? Like if I hire you to cut my grass, and my lawnmower is in poor repair and it cuts your feet off, am I in responsible? ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2010, 2:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatives-overwhelmingly-oppose-healthcare-for-9-11-workers/548816/252 "2010-08-06T02:01:11Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > > [@Scylla](#): > > > > Ok. So why are we more obligated to those folks then everybody else? > > Because they were hired to clean up an area, and were made sick because of it? > > Like if I hire you to cut my grass, and my lawnmower is in poor repair and it cuts your feet off, am I in responsible? Your ignoring my earlier post where I addressed this directly. Again, why are the workers cleaning up the 9/11 site better or more deserving of special treatment than the ones cleaning up some building that’s been imploded to make way for a new one? Why is a construction worker at the WTC site more deserving than one in, say, Toledo? ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2010, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatives-overwhelmingly-oppose-healthcare-for-9-11-workers/548816/253 "2010-08-06T02:07:42Z")
[quote=“Blalron, post:250, topic:548816”] > [@Scylla](#): > > It’s not somebody else’s money. Once the money is in government coffers, it’s the government’s money. Yes. I get that. Being for or against giving away the government’s money doesn’t make one more or less compassionate since it is not **their** that they are talking about giving away. > [@](#): > > Thank you for supporting Universal Healthcare! Nope. My saying that one group is not special enough to deserve something cannot logically be construed to mean that therefore **everybody** deserves it. ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2010, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatives-overwhelmingly-oppose-healthcare-for-9-11-workers/548816/254 "2010-08-06T02:44:23Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > Yes. I get that. Being for or against giving away the government’s money doesn’t make one more or less compassionate since it is not **their** that they are talking about giving away. [Oh really?](http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/compassion) > [@dictionary.com](#): > > com·pas·sion > /kəmˈpæʃən/ Show Spelled[kuhm-pash-uhn] Show IPA > –noun > 1. > a feeling of deep sympathy and sorrow for another who is stricken by misfortune, accompanied by a strong desire to alleviate the suffering. I don’t see anything in that definition that excludes taxpayer funded compassion. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2010, 12:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatives-overwhelmingly-oppose-healthcare-for-9-11-workers/548816/255 "2010-08-06T12:48:18Z")
It completely avoids the Substance of the argument to play meaningless semantics. Then, it puts the lotion in the basket or it gets the hose. ---
**Author:** ![Digital\_Stimulus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@Digital\_Stimulus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Digital_Stimulus)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2010, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatives-overwhelmingly-oppose-healthcare-for-9-11-workers/548816/256 "2010-08-06T15:34:17Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > 1. You can’t be compassionate with somebody else’s money. You can only be compassionate with your money and effort. > > 2. 9/11 workers are not better or more deserving than, say, longshoreman who may injure themselves for life on the job, or truckers who ruin their backs, or coal miners their lungs. Why are demolition, construction, and others better or more deserving than everybody else who does the exact same job but just didn’t happen to do it at the WTC site? > > 3. Why is somebody who develops chronic lung disease who happened to be in NYC on 9/11 better than somebody else with the same disease who is in LA? In rebuttal, I’ll quote from the [“We need conservatives” why?](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=572756) thread. It’s a great example of the sentiment I want to express; I hope that **Una Persson** won’t object to its application in a different context: > [@"We need conservatives" why?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-need-conservatives-why/548524/273): > > …It’s what I consider a large aspect of conservatism: the individual takes first - not only, not sole - responsibility for their own self-defense. Where hardline conservatives get it wrong is by assuming that the individual has the sole or only responsiblity. We are and live in a Community, and conservatism believes the Community exists for the mutual benefit, health, and welfare of its individuals. But the individuals must step up to the plate, to use a hideous baseball analogy, and have the primary role. That sentiment, to me, is the difference between your Mr. Potter and **Una Persson** ’s George Bailey. The people who responded to 9/11 did so not for a paycheck, nor for personal benefit, nor out of obligation. Rather, they did so out of a sense of community and, in fact, the compassion you reference in your point 1. This makes them “more deserving” – although not “better” – than those you mention in your points 2 and 3. Really, it’s that simple. IMHO, it is right and proper to utilize the resources of the government in return for their actions. Clearly, it’s not the _only_ way to do so, nor is it necessarily the _best_ way. But, IMHO, it is a _good_ way. In fact, I’d say that it’s what community is _for_; and yes, those who stepped up to contribute for the mutual benefit, health, and welfare of our community deserve to now have us step up for them, if only in this imperfect way. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2010, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatives-overwhelmingly-oppose-healthcare-for-9-11-workers/548816/257 "2010-08-06T16:23:26Z")
> [@Digital\_Stimulus](#): > > That sentiment, to me, is the difference between your Mr. Potter and **Una Persson** ’s George Bailey. The people who responded to 9/11 did so not for a paycheck, nor for personal benefit, nor out of obligation. Rather, they did so out of a sense of community and, in fact, the compassion you reference in your point 1. This makes them “more deserving” – although not “better” – than those you mention in your points 2 and 3. Really, it’s that simple. > > IMHO, it is right and proper to utilize the resources of the government in return for their actions. Clearly, it’s not the _only_ way to do so, nor is it necessarily the _best_ way. But, IMHO, it is a _good_ way. In fact, I’d say that it’s what community is _for_; and yes, those who stepped up to contribute for the mutual benefit, health, and welfare of our community deserve to now have us step up for them, if only in this imperfect way. I want to pose a question to the conservative and/or libertarian people… If the government does not exist to preserve order and provide services, protections, and a framework, if every individual is solely responsible for their own “look out” and is left hanging, Then what do we really need government for?? Obviously not for any “common welfare” or any “well being”. So if government does not provide any benefit or protection (or anything), let’s just scrap it. Really. Scylla, if it’s all on us to take care of and protect ourselves, we don’t need any police or fire department, or department of health or anything. So then we don’t need any government. In the end, the logical conclusion would be that only in anarchy, only in total chaos, when every individual is left entirely to their own devices, are we “free”. Right? ---
**Author:** ![Algher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Algher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Algher)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2010, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatives-overwhelmingly-oppose-healthcare-for-9-11-workers/548816/258 "2010-08-06T16:29:37Z")
> [@Jack\_Batty](#): > > Unbelievable. Eight years ago if a 9/11 first responder found two fortunes in his fortune cookie, it was proof enough for beatification. Now apparently they’re shit. Again - this bill would have covered far more than the first responders. More importantly, the first responders (police, medical and fire) are already covered by their government health packages. ---
**Author:** ![MovieMogul](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f08c70/32.png) [@MovieMogul](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MovieMogul)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2010, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatives-overwhelmingly-oppose-healthcare-for-9-11-workers/548816/259 "2010-08-06T16:43:51Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > > [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > > > You got a cite for that analysis being done before the attack? > > Sure. Karl Rove’s book “Courage and Consequence.” He describes these kind of discussions n some detail. Wow, Karl Rove, eh? If you can’t trust his (revisionistic) word, whose can you trust? [A differing opinion](http://www.newsweek.com/2010/05/15/secrets-from-inside-the-obama-war-room.html): > [@](#): > > Deputy national-security adviser Tom Donilon had commissioned research that backed up an astonishing historical truth: neither the Vietnam War nor the Iraq War featured any key meetings where all the issues and assumptions were discussed by policymakers. In both cases the United States was sucked into war inch by inch. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2010, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatives-overwhelmingly-oppose-healthcare-for-9-11-workers/548816/260 "2010-08-06T17:05:18Z")
> [@ArchiveGuy](#): > > > [@Bricker](#): > > > > Sure. Karl Rove’s book “Courage and Consequence.” He describes these kind of discussions n some detail. > > Wow, Karl Rove, eh? If you can’t trust his (revisionistic) word, whose can you trust? . Karl Rove the liar? Karl Rove the coward? Karl Rove who never ever had to face a “Consequence” for anything? Give me a fucking break!!! I’m with ArchiveGuy here. Forget that festering boil on the asshole of humanity. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatives-overwhelmingly-oppose-healthcare-for-9-11-workers/548816.md?page=12) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatives-overwhelmingly-oppose-healthcare-for-9-11-workers/548816.md?page=14)