# 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:** 3
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2010, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatives-overwhelmingly-oppose-healthcare-for-9-11-workers/548816/41 "2010-08-02T01:07:28Z")
> [@sleeping](#): > > Yeah, but: > -the vote was on \*this \*form of the bill …which didn’t include a ban on illegal immigrants. > [@](#): > > -as I stated just before this, I do not see the exclusion of illegal immigrants as justifiable, inherently or as a reason for voting against the bill Again, figure the GOP will phrase it the other way around: is the _ **inclusion** _ of illegal immigrants so danged important that Dems couldn’t bend on this one point? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2010, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatives-overwhelmingly-oppose-healthcare-for-9-11-workers/548816/42 "2010-08-02T01:15:38Z")
> [@sleeping](#): > > > [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > > > Post #10, dude. > > > [@Bricker](#): > > > > You tell me, **sleeping** : do you feel your summary of the bill was complete, factual, and neutral? > > I think it was factual and neutral, yes. At the time, I was not aware of the amendment to preclude illegal immigrants from being covered by this, but it really doesn’t change my opinion. If that’s the sole reason for the opposition, then that means conservatives are willing to prevent 9/11 rescue workers and WTC-proximate residents from getting healthcare, just because some of them might be illegal immigrants–as if those victims do not deserve care. In other words, they are practicing sociopathy because the other side will not indulge their prejudices…a despicable position, no matter which way you look at it. I asked “complete, factual, and neutral.” You’ve affirmed your beliefin the factuality and neutrality of your position, but implicitly conceded your summary was not complete. So now your argument is, “Even so, they shouldn’t have taken this position as to illegal immigrants.” And perhaps you’re right. But they didn’t vote to kill the bill entirely. They simply refused to permit it without amendments. And while you may be convinced that excluding illegal immigrants may be “sociopathic,” you can hardly claim it’s covered by your original summary. The Republicans wanted to do things the way they’re traditionally done in Congress – by debate and amendment. They propose an amendment to bar illegal aliens. “Sociopathic,” according to you, but not according to most polls. So what you’re really saying here is that the Republicans are being sociopathic for taking a position a substantial portion of the country agrees with. But you didn’t even have the guts to say that honestly. Instead, you presented an incomplete version of the bill and sought to gain support for your position this way. ---
**Author:** ![sleeping](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/839c29/32.png) [@sleeping](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sleeping)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2010, 1:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatives-overwhelmingly-oppose-healthcare-for-9-11-workers/548816/43 "2010-08-02T01:18:37Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > -as I stated just before this, I do not see the exclusion of illegal immigrants as justifiable, inherently or as a reason for voting against the bill > > Again, figure the GOP will phrase it the other way around: is the _ **inclusion** _ of illegal immigrants so danged important that Dems couldn’t bend on this one point? They can phrase it any way they like. It doesn’t change the fact that their version of the bill would have presented Democrats with the choice of sociopathy or bigotry. This version supports neither of those approaches. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2010, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatives-overwhelmingly-oppose-healthcare-for-9-11-workers/548816/44 "2010-08-02T01:20:29Z")
> [@Boyo\_Jim](#): > > Why should the relatives of the dead have gotten that HUGE payout? Had I known I would have thrown my sister into the building. before or after you nailed her? ---
**Author:** ![sleeping](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/839c29/32.png) [@sleeping](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sleeping)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2010, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatives-overwhelmingly-oppose-healthcare-for-9-11-workers/548816/45 "2010-08-02T01:24:55Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I asked “complete, factual, and neutral.” You’ve affirmed your beliefin the factuality and neutrality of your position, but implicitly conceded your summary was not complete. > > So now your argument is, “Even so, they shouldn’t have taken this position as to illegal immigrants.” > > And perhaps you’re right. But they didn’t vote to kill the bill entirely. They simply refused to permit it without amendments. And while you may be convinced that excluding illegal immigrants may be “sociopathic,” you can hardly claim it’s covered by your original summary. > > The Republicans wanted to do things the way they’re traditionally done in Congress – by debate and amendment. They propose an amendment to bar illegal aliens. “Sociopathic,” according to you, **but not according to most polls**. So what you’re really saying here is that the Republicans are being sociopathic for taking a position a substantial portion of the country agrees with. > > **But you didn’t even have the guts to say that honestly. Instead, you presented an incomplete version of the bill and sought to gain support for your position this way**. Well, if you believe that I did not deliberately omit that fact, then you can’t really say I was being dishonest. But that’s beside the point. Was there actually a poll that asked people whether they felt illegal immigrants should be excluded from receiving benefits for 9/11-related diseases? ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2010, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatives-overwhelmingly-oppose-healthcare-for-9-11-workers/548816/46 "2010-08-02T01:26:00Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > Just to play devil’s advocate, after reading several articles about the legislation - it sounds a lot like a $7 billion blowjob. It’s not absolutely clear the legislation is needed and it’s extremely probable that a lot of the money earmarked will be given to people who haven’t gotten sick from WTC-related effects at all. > > In fact, it’s named after a WTC cleanup worker who died, and whose death is alleged to be connected to working there, and\*\* yet the New York medical examiner says the man died of drug abuse.\*\* There may be legitimate reasons to oppose a bill that at first glance has a very Rudy Giuliani “verb noun 9/11” feel to it. Then that’s what the GOP should have said. I didn’t vote for it because it’s ostly pork with a sympathetic name. I could respect that. To vote it down and cite procedure sounds awfully weaselly to me. ---
**Author:** ![sleeping](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/839c29/32.png) [@sleeping](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sleeping)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2010, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatives-overwhelmingly-oppose-healthcare-for-9-11-workers/548816/47 "2010-08-02T01:26:11Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > > [@Boyo\_Jim](#): > > > > Why should the relatives of the dead have gotten that HUGE payout? Had I known I would have thrown my sister into the building. > > before or after you nailed her? “as”? 😃 ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2010, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatives-overwhelmingly-oppose-healthcare-for-9-11-workers/548816/48 "2010-08-02T01:35:48Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Sounds like politicking on both sides to me. And if the bill is that important, then let the Pubbies put in their anti-illegal alien stuff, and get the damn thing done. > > Pelosi know how to count votes (or whoever it is who does this for her), so they knew it wouldn’t pass. So, they get to paint the Pubbies in a negative light, then pass the bill anyway later. > > Washington. This may be true but I keep asking why the Pubbies didn’t just pass it. So what if they needed 2/3. If it’s a good bill pass it. Take credit for bipartisan good work and deny the Dems the chance to grandstand. Why vote it down and then look like asses for whining about procedure? ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2010, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatives-overwhelmingly-oppose-healthcare-for-9-11-workers/548816/49 "2010-08-02T01:44:25Z")
> [@bullrun](#): > > ,Because…the left had attached a multitude of ride-ons that were hard for the conservatives to live with. They did it on purpose. Also…from the beginning vote…the libs had enough votes to pass the bill but kept denying pasage to try and give the conservatives a black-eye. All smoke and mirrors. I’d ask for a cite but I’m pretty sure you made this up and it’s a load of bullshit. ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2010, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatives-overwhelmingly-oppose-healthcare-for-9-11-workers/548816/50 "2010-08-02T01:44:29Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > > [@sleeping](#): > > > > Yeah, but: > > -the vote was on \*this \*form of the bill > > …which didn’t include a ban on illegal immigrants. > > > [@](#): > > > > -as I stated just before this, I do not see the exclusion of illegal immigrants as justifiable, inherently or as a reason for voting against the bill > > Again, figure the GOP will phrase it the other way around: is the _ **inclusion** _ of illegal immigrants so danged important that Dems couldn’t bend on this one point? Yes. I see no reason to deny aid to an illegal immigrant who was a victim of this tragedy, other than pure malice. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2010, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatives-overwhelmingly-oppose-healthcare-for-9-11-workers/548816/51 "2010-08-02T01:48:18Z")
> [@bullrun](#): > > What political dribble! The left had ample votes from the beginning to pass the bill . They kept changing the ‘numbers’ rules to make it even harder to pass so they could blame the republicans. Truth is …the right could never have stopped the bill. The left held it up. They then cried that the Republicans weren’t voting with them and cared nothing for the 911 workers. > The truth is that the left added riders onto the bill that were hard for the republicans to stomach. They balked. They said..take off of few of these ridiculous add-ons and we will vote for helping the workers . The dems refused. Everything is politics to the left. If they had really wanted instant help for the 911 rescuers…the left would have submitted a clean bill that simply provided for the help…and it would have passed easily. That must also be why when they were asked about voting it down they whined about procedure rather than offering this explanation. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2010, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatives-overwhelmingly-oppose-healthcare-for-9-11-workers/548816/52 "2010-08-02T02:21:47Z")
> [@Blalron](#): > > Yes. I see no reason to deny aid to an illegal immigrant who was a victim of this tragedy, other than pure malice. Contributory negligence principle. If they had not been in the country illegally, they wouldn’t have been victims. That’s not malice; it is, in a sense, simple logic. You can say it’s cold- I would- but you can’t say it can only be malice. ---
**Author:** ![sleeping](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/839c29/32.png) [@sleeping](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sleeping)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2010, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatives-overwhelmingly-oppose-healthcare-for-9-11-workers/548816/53 "2010-08-02T02:33:33Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > > [@Blalron](#): > > > > Yes. I see no reason to deny aid to an illegal immigrant who was a victim of this tragedy, other than pure malice. > > Contributory negligence principle. If they had not been in the country illegally, they wouldn’t have been victims. That’s not malice; it is, in a sense, simple logic. > > You can say it’s cold- I would- but you can’t say it can only be malice. Not seeing how that provides any wiggle room. Any evaluation of the situation through conventional morality would recommend equitable treatment. Besides, wouldn’t that suggest that they should have anticipated an increased threat of a terrorist attack due to their physical location? :dubious: This whole line of reasoning is moot. ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2010, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatives-overwhelmingly-oppose-healthcare-for-9-11-workers/548816/54 "2010-08-02T02:53:58Z")
I’m going to go on a limb and say that I’m sure the bill was much longer than" Article 1: All people whose health conditions worsened as a result of their direct work in the tragedies of 9/11 shall receive immediate and endless medicare benefits after the condition has been establsihed by a competent medical council." It’s is easy to oppose a bill with a right-sounding name because of all the shit that is in it. ---
**Author:** ![sleeping](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/839c29/32.png) [@sleeping](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sleeping)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2010, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatives-overwhelmingly-oppose-healthcare-for-9-11-workers/548816/55 "2010-08-02T03:02:34Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > I’m going to go on a limb and say that I’m sure the bill was much longer than" Article 1: All people whose health conditions worsened as a result of their direct work in the tragedies of 9/11 shall receive immediate and endless medicare benefits after the condition has been establsihed by a competent medical council." > It’s is easy to oppose a bill with a right-sounding name because of all the shit that is in it. They said why they opposed it, and it seems “procedure” was the main reason. The illegal immigrant thing is a possible second. If there was anything else in there that they had a problem with, I’m sure we’d be hearing about it. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tao_s_Revenge)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2010, 3:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatives-overwhelmingly-oppose-healthcare-for-9-11-workers/548816/56 "2010-08-02T03:12:29Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > > [@Blalron](#): > > > > Yes. I see no reason to deny aid to an illegal immigrant who was a victim of this tragedy, other than pure malice. > > Contributory negligence principle. If they had not been in the country illegally, they wouldn’t have been victims. That’s not malice; it is, in a sense, simple logic. > > You can say it’s cold- I would- but you can’t say it can only be malice. No it is malice. Let’s say someone ran a stop sign and T-boned you driving somewhere to buy beer on a Sunday in blue law state. The T-bone wouldn’t have happened had you followed the law and stayed home. Would anyone but a jackass would wag their finger and say you had it coming? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2010, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatives-overwhelmingly-oppose-healthcare-for-9-11-workers/548816/57 "2010-08-02T03:27:47Z")
And food stamp recipients? Be just like those Dems to try to sneak in some provision so welfare queens can drive up in their Cadillacs and get cosmetic surgery! Clearly, that calls for an amendment. And Muslims? Gay atheists? Amendment, amendment. Child molestors? Better believe thats an amendment… ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2010, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatives-overwhelmingly-oppose-healthcare-for-9-11-workers/548816/58 "2010-08-02T03:30:14Z")
> [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](#): > > No it is malice. Let’s say someone ran a stop sign and T-boned you driving somewhere to buy beer on a Sunday in blue law state. The T-bone wouldn’t have happened had you followed the law and stayed home. Would anyone but a jackass would wag their finger and say you had it coming? No, but in your hypothetical you haven’t broken the law yet. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2010, 3:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatives-overwhelmingly-oppose-healthcare-for-9-11-workers/548816/59 "2010-08-02T03:36:11Z")
> [@sleeping](#): > > > [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > > > If the Democrats hadn’t been worried about political issues and were really solely concerned with the workers, they could have just passed the bill like normal (after letting Republicans grand stand with amendments that, as the majority party they could easily have shot down) and been done with it. > > Here’s the thing. Let’s suppose that the Democrats did this \*solely \*for political reasons, for the reasons you mentioned. The question remains: why did the Republicans (and conservative Dems) oppose it? Political reasons. The thing is, it isn’t a one-sided street, the Democrats could have taken the higher road. I’m not defending either side, both are playing politics with people’s lives. But that’s what politicians do and it doesn’t surprise me. What annoys me is people acting like somehow the Republicans are any different from the Democrats in this. If the Dems had just allowed a straight up and down vote, which would have meant some Republicans got to make air time out of it, it would have passed and the workers would have their money. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2010, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatives-overwhelmingly-oppose-healthcare-for-9-11-workers/548816/60 "2010-08-02T03:38:34Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > Just to play devil’s advocate, after reading several articles about the legislation - it sounds a lot like a $7 billion blowjob. It’s not absolutely clear the legislation is needed and it’s extremely probable that a lot of the money earmarked will be given to people who haven’t gotten sick from WTC-related effects at all. > > In fact, it’s named after a WTC cleanup worker who died, and whose death is alleged to be connected to working there, and\*\* yet the New York medical examiner says the man died of drug abuse.\*\* There may be legitimate reasons to oppose a bill that at first glance has a very Rudy Giuliani “verb noun 9/11” feel to it. At this point, and I say this as a fiscal conservative, the train is so far off the tracks it almost feels immoral to deny $7bn to Americans that performed an important task for the public good and suffered immensely for it. We now spend so much money that arguing about $7bn is like a party of 6 multi-millionaires stopping into a Denny’s and then arguing about who has to leave a $5 tip. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatives-overwhelmingly-oppose-healthcare-for-9-11-workers/548816.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatives-overwhelmingly-oppose-healthcare-for-9-11-workers/548816.md?page=4)