• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Program won't cover 9/11 responders for cancer

And if they don't, or it is not enough to cover their health care bills, the government should foot the rest of the bill.

Harry G thinks it's OK to "partially compensate" someone for their labor.

He rationalized theft and fraud
 
You forgot what you said? Priceless!

You said there was no evidence that the cancers COULD have been caused by exposure at the WTC

Me said:
there is no evidence that the cancers present in some people are directly related to the carcinogens that they were potentially exposed to during and after the WTC attacks.

Now what did I say?
 
Distorting what I said.

Partially, as in; in part of the whole of their compensation package which also includes, wages and retirement benefits.

That's not what you said, but it's not the first time you've moved the goalposts in this thread
 
Moving goal posts.

This topic is about responders (police, fire, ambulatory), not workers(could be anything).

OK. MY bad.

I'm trying to find out why if they have existing coverage, it's nto being paid for. I can't even find anyone arguing they already have insurance to pay for this.
 
Workers is a generic reference to all people, including debris clearing and construction personnel.
First responders are not debris cleaners or construction personnel.

Obviously, you weren't there during the attack or in the days after.

Construction workers all over the city left their work sites and rushed to the WTC DURING the attack. Some arrived before the 2nd plane hit.
 
OK. MY bad.

I'm trying to find out why if they have existing coverage, it's nto being paid for. I can't even find anyone arguing they already have insurance to pay for this.

No, not your bad. Construction workers were among the people who first responded to the attack.
 
Here is what you said




First you asked for evidence that it COULD have caused harm. Then you changed it to proof that it DID cause harm

I did not change anything, otherwise the post would represent that I edited it.

Yes I misspoke later on, but that does not prove that the cancer is primarily caused by the exposure.

If they would actually investigate it further and could provide more than conjecture, that the fallout was the primary or the most likely primary cause for the cancer, then I would fully support coverage as they are liable for the damages.
 
Potential carcinogens from WTC fallout ≠ Agent Orange, GWS or PSTD
They are not equivocal.

Perhaps they are. Let's look at GWS. The facts are that a toxic mix in the Gulf AO caused an inordinate amount of Americans and local nationals to have a number of illnesses, including early ALS, cancer, a host of nasty and thus far incurable maladies - and higher birth defects especially in and around areas like Fallujah. I can go deeper into the subject, but not here. The U.S. Government, the VA in this case, shucked and jived and lied and stone walled and bull****ted and ****ed over all the people coming home with GWS, telling them they're lying, goldbricking, it's all in their head. They did the EXACT same thing regarding Agent Orange. The government that waved the flag and called them heroes shoved it up the butt when they came home sick as a result of their deployment. The same government denied them continued medical treatment and compensation for their disabilities and their disabled children. Could the Bush Administration have then lied to Americans, New Yorkers about air quality? Oh, hell yes, and did. It is therefore equivocal, there is a pattern, well established and documented.

Besides the point that they already have medical coverage.

Nope. The medical coverage was/is often inadequate and insufficient. The harm the people in question encountered was extraordinary and most coverage was inadequate. The government's role in causing great harm is inexcusable. It is in fact in an extraordinary situation such as 9/11 that the government SHOULD step in and ensure the proper assistance for people who were harmed. Nope, you disagree. If the first responders, the salvage workers, the clean up workers and the people living in that area of Manhattan didn't have proper insurance for that kind of disaster, with illnesses from causes unknown within the U.S. then screw those dumb ass chumps for not knowing better, right?

What we are really talking about here is YOUR sense of entitlement, isn't it Harry. I was once a Libertarian. Capital L. It's all about moi, isn't it? Self entitlement and everyone else is a sucker, dummy or fool.
 
Last edited:
I did not change anything, otherwise the post would represent that I edited it.

Oy vey!!

One post said "could". After I pointed out that there was evidence, you changed it to "did"

Yes I misspoke later on, but that does not prove that the cancer is primarily caused by the exposure.

So now you "misspoke"? :roll:

If they would actually investigate it further and could provide more than conjecture, that the fallout was the primary or the most likely primary cause for the cancer, then I would fully support coverage as they are liable for the damages.

Gee, so you're going to stick to the "misspoken" point?
 
Workers is a generic reference to all people, including debris clearing and construction personnel.
First responders are not debris cleaners or construction personnel.

I do think it includes both. The page I quoted, and a few others I've read refer to both as workers. As I said, I want to find out why they need the money if they already ahve adequate coverage. I suspect, as noted above they don't really have the coverage they need.
 
Oy vey!!

One post said "could". After I pointed out that there was evidence, you changed it to "did"

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...-9-11-responders-cancer-5.html#post1059697573

Show me where it says "edited" so that we know that I changed it.
Even as a mod, I cannot hide my "edits."

So now you "misspoke"? :roll:



Gee, so you're going to stick to the "misspoken" point?

Yes, because I did.
Much better than you accusing me of changing my post, without any evidence what so ever.
 
http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...-9-11-responders-cancer-5.html#post1059697573

Show me where it says "edited" so that we know that I changed it.
Even as a mod, I cannot hide my "edits."

It was in two seperate posts. One you argued "could". Then, after being proved wrong, you posted again, arguing "did"




Yes, because I did.
Much better than you accusing me of changing my post, without any evidence what so ever.

I didn't say you changed your POST. I said you changed your ARGUMENT
 
Perhaps they are. Let's look at GWS. The facts are that a toxic mix in the Gulf AO caused an inordinate amount of Americans and local nationals to have a number of illnesses, including early ALS, cancer, a host of nasty and thus far incurable maladies - and higher birth defects especially in and around areas like Fallujah. I can go deeper into the subject, but not here. The U.S. Government, the VA in this case, shucked and jived and lied and stone walled and bull****ted and ****ed over all the people coming home with GWS, telling them they're lying, goldbricking, it's all in their head. They did the EXACT same thing regarding Agent Orange. The government that waved the flag and called them heroes shoved it up the butt when they came home sick as a result of their deployment. The same government denied them continued medical treatment and compensation for their disabilities and their disabled children. Could the Bush Administration have then lied to Americans, New Yorkers about air quality? Oh, hell yes, and did. It is therefore equivocal, there is a pattern, well established and documented.

If I'm not mistaken, Agent Orange and GWS were both documented to cause problems and were hidden from the public eye, for some time.


Nope. The medical coverage was/is often inadequate and insufficient. The harm the people in question encountered was extraordinary and most coverage was inadequate. The government's role in causing great harm is inexcusable. It is in fact in an extraordinary situation such as 9/11 that the government SHOULD step in and ensure the proper assistance for people who were harmed. Nope, you disagree. If the first responders, the salvage workers, the clean up works and the people living in that area of Manhattan didn't have proper insurance for that kind of disaster with illnesses from causes unknown with in the U.S. then screw those dumb ass chumps for not knowing better.

I didn't say that.
You're quite good at putting words into my mouth, I'll say that.


What we are really talking about here is YOUR sense of entitlement, isn't it Harry. I was once a Libertarian. Capital L. It's all about moi, isn't it? Self entitlement and everyone else is a sucker, dummy or fool.

What have I claimed that I am entitled too?
Is this just another, "attack the person, not debate the topic" posts?
 
Back
Top Bottom