• 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

Midwest Lib

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 3, 2009
Messages
642
Reaction score
414
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Workers who were involved in the response to the World Trade Center attack will not have their cancer treatments compensated under a program set up after September 11, according to a controversial decision released Tuesday by the World Trade Center Health Program.

There is inadequate "published scientific and medical findings" that a causal link exists between September 11 exposures and the occurrence of cancer in responders and survivors, program Administrator John Howard said in a statement.


Program won't cover 9/11 responders for cancer - CNN.com

Really? Of all the things that we should be able to spend money on...
 
Last edited:
Yeah, I saw that. Can't think of anything that would express my outrage adequately. They should have been rich, then we'd have more people standing up for them.

Agreed. I don't like a lot of the things our government does. This however is, in a word, despicable.
 
This is horrible. I can't believe the incompetence.
 
Not sure it is incompetence. I sadly think it is on purpose, meant to save dollars.

Like it would really cost that ****ing much in the grand scheme of things. Any money they would save is negligible. I don't know how anyone could have supported this.
 
Like it would really cost that ****ing much in the grand scheme of things. Any money they would save is negligible. I don't know how anyone could have supported this.

Neither do I, but they did. I think I will remember this come election time.
 
For me it would depend on whether or not there were a reasonable correlation between 9/11 and the cancer.
 
There is also a casual link found between those people and their proximity to NYC.
Maybe we should set up a fund to cover all people, who get cancer, that have also spent time in NYC.

Well, I'm for covering everybody in the country so this wouldn't be a problem ;)
 
Well, I'm for covering everybody in the country so this wouldn't be a problem ;)

There is really no reason to offer any extra benefits to people who worked on the 9/11 site, that other people in similar positions don't recieve, just because they weren't at the right place and the right time.

The entire premise of this is an appeal to emotion, that somehow these people are more noble and more deserving than others, when they necessary aren't.
 
For me it would depend on whether or not there were a reasonable correlation between 9/11 and the cancer.

I don't think itmatters at all. These people risked their lives, ran into the breech, for us. We can take a hit for them.



That said, it is not hard at all to make a reasonable correlation. Look at what all they were in.
 
You have to draw the line somewhere. Unless you can prove, that 9/11 caused cancer, and it was directly because of on the job events...

This is just emotionalism. We cannot afford to pay for everyone's healthcare, that's just reality.
 
You have to draw the line somewhere. Unless you can prove, that 9/11 caused cancer, and it was directly because of on the job events...

This is just emotionalism. We cannot afford to pay for everyone's healthcare, that's just reality.

Do you? At worse, it would not add up to effort to have any major effect. But still, the line should not be this low.

And frankly, if structure correctly, we could afford everyone's health care much cheaper than we spend now. We are near the top in spending right now.
 
just because they weren't at the right place and the right time.

You obviously weren't anywhere near the site in the period shortly after the attack. It was neither the right place, nor the right time

The only thing "right" about what was going on there was the way thousands of workers (almost all of them union members) put aside their own interests to do what was needed to recover the site.
 
At worse, it would not add up to effort to have any major effect.

pardon?

And frankly, if structure (sic) correctly, we could afford everyone's health care much cheaper than we spend now.

well, the current model sure aint working

did you know that, according to the asa's citation of the now world famous uva study, americans with NO HEALTH INSURANCE actually fare BETTER (shorter stays, lower costs, reduced mortality) than their less fortunate friends and fellows whose primary care status is MEDICAID, the ghetto of american health care

ASA: ASA 130th Annual Meeting Abstracts - Primary Payer Status Affects Mortality For Major Surgical Operations

that's, of course, AFTER controlling for age, gender, income, geographic region, operation, and 30 comorbid conditions

facts make formidable foes
 
pardon?



well, the current model sure aint working

did you know that, according to the asa's citation of the now world famous uva study, americans with NO HEALTH INSURANCE actually fare BETTER (shorter stays, lower costs, reduced mortality) than their less fortunate friends and fellows whose primary care status is MEDICAID, the ghetto of american health care

ASA: ASA 130th Annual Meeting Abstracts - Primary Payer Status Affects Mortality For Major Surgical Operations

that's, of course, AFTER controlling for age, gender, income, geographic region, operation, and 30 comorbid conditions

facts make formidable foes

Like I told you, I wish you understood what you're reading. Until you do, there's no where to go.
 
There is also a casual link found between those people and their proximity to NYC.
Maybe we should set up a fund to cover all people, who get cancer, that have also spent time in NYC.

I expected something like that from you. **** the First Responders, right? They knew what they were getting into when they became cops and firemen and medics. It's their own damn fault. If they had only been Libertarian they'd have said, "Nope, not my job. This wasn't in my contract. You need to call private cops, firemen and medics."

Anyone stupid enough to put their ass out there for the public good is a twat, right Harry?
 
there's no where to go

there's always detroit

From 2003-2007, 893,658 major surgical operations were evaluated using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) database: lung resection, esophagectomy, colectomy, pancreatectomy, gastrectomy, abdominal aortic aneurysm repair, hip replacement, and coronary artery bypass. Patients were stratified by primary payer status: Medicare (n=491,829), Medicaid (n=40,259), Private Insurance (n=337,535), and Uninsured (n=24,035).

Importantly, after controlling for age, gender, income, geographic region, operation, and 30 comorbid conditions, Medicaid payer status was associated with the longest length of stay and highest total costs. In addition, Medicaid and Uninsured payer status independently conferred the highest adjusted risks of mortality.

and the uninsured group experienced 15% lower mortality, after controls, than those stuck in the ghetto

link above
 
there's always detroit



and the uninsured group experienced 15% lower mortality, after controls, than those stuck in the ghetto

link above

Again, if you only understood, hell, if you even wanted to understand, we could have move forward. You don't, so, there's no point. :coffeepap
 
there's always detroit



and the uninsured group experienced 15% lower mortality, after controls, than those stuck in the ghetto

link above

Waaaaaaaaay off topic, dude. Are you intentionally diverting it?
 
And frankly, if structure (sic) correctly, we could afford everyone's health care much cheaper than we spend now. We are near the top in spending right now.

and getting ripped off

medicaid: "outcomes associated with the longest length of stay, highest total costs and highest mortality"

ouch

stay well, wallabies
 
Compassionate conservatism at its finest.

Reality at it's finest.

Government cannot do everything, cannot solve every problem and fund every issue. Despite the pipe dreams of the liberals. That's why we're 15,000,000,000,000.00 in the hole and counting.
 
Back
Top Bottom