Senate Passes Reduced-Cost, 9/11 Health Care Bill
Wednesday 22 December 2010
by: Nadia Prupis, t r u t h o u t | Report

A New York City firefighters looks up at what remains of the World Trade Center after its collapse following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack. (Photo: Photographer's Mate 2nd Class Jim Watson / US Navy)
The Senate passed a bill today covering the cost of medical care of 9/11 first responders, who are now suffering from long-term or crippling illnesses after inhaling toxic fumes and smoke during their rescue work at ground zero.
Led by Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-New York) and Charles Schumer (D-New York), the Senate reached a compromise with Republicans, who were concerned over the initial cost of the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act, which would have provided $7.4 billion over ten years. Today's approved legislation will provide $4.3 billion over five years.
"The Christmas Miracle we've been looking for has arrived," Gillibrand and Schumer said in a statement. "Over the last 24 hours, our Republican colleagues have negotiated in good-faith to forge a workable final package that will protect the health of the men and women who selflessly answered our nation's call in her hour of greatest need ... This has been a long process, but we are now on the cusp of the victory these heroes deserve."
Of the $4.3 billion total allotted, $1.5 billion will fund health benefits, while $2.7 will go to compensation.
The final bill also changes a few key provisions. According to Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Oklahoma), who helped negotiate the bill after initially serving as one of its most vocal opponents, the Victims Compensation Fund (VCF) will close permanently after five years, while the original bill kept the VCF open through 2031. In keeping with the earlier versions of the bill, however, claimants who are rejected from VCF will not be able to file a lawsuit for compensation or medical care.
The bill will also place a cap on attorneys' fees at 10 percent of the total awarded to the claimants, and will allow the legislation's special master to reduce excessive attorney fees.
Coburn released a statement today lauding the bill's fiscal changes, "I'm pleased the sponsors of this bill agreed to lower costs dramatically, offset the bill, sunset key provisions and take steps to prevent fraud," Coburn stated. "Every American recognizes the heroism of the 9/11 first responders, but it is not compassionate to help one group while robbing future generations of opportunity."
The House will vote on the bill this afternoon.

This work by Truthout is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 United States License.



Comments
This forum is moderated by software. Please allow up to 15 minutes for your comments to go live and avoid posting the same comment multiple times.
It is wonderful that this
Wed, 12/22/2010 - 17:56 — Richard Schwartz (not verified)It is wonderful that this very important legislation finally passed the Senate, even in its weakened final form.
What does it say about the Republican Party that they held congress and the nation hostage to continue tax breaks for the wealthiest 2% of Americans who have been doing so well in the past ten years and do not need it, while increasing the national debt by $700 billion if continued for the next decade, while making it so difficult to help the heroic 9/11 first responders?
Why does this article say
Wed, 12/22/2010 - 18:21 — S.O.Teric (not verified)Why does this article say nothing about how the 9/11 health care bill for first responders will be financed? As I understood it the chief opponents of the bill were the US Chamber of Commerce as well as certain corporations who were angry that the health care would be financed by eliminating certain tax loopholes now granted to companies who file from off-shore addresses. This article makes it sound like the chief obstacle was the fear that trial lawyers would make too much money on it. That may be partially the case, but the article might have been written by Tom Coburn himself!!
Excuse me if I do NOT jump
Wed, 12/22/2010 - 23:16 — Anonymous (not verified)Excuse me if I do NOT jump on the praise bandwagon for our whores in Congress, Republicans OR Democrats.
Where the hell is an expanded and improved Medicare for the nation?
Then all of this would be MOOT, not to mention that the cost savings, which have been documented for years by anyone from the Congressional Budget Office to numerous other state and federal studies.
You are all so F.O.S., including Gillibrand and Schumer who stood in the way of single payer, and stood instead, with the muderous health insurance industry.
55 million new customers for the people who put you in office with the health plans NONE of you deserve.
Traitors to America. Not a one of you would be a first responder if you were close enough to a national catastrople. You'd all be hiding under your desks if not taking the first taxi cab out of town.
I couldn't agree more with
Thu, 12/23/2010 - 09:39 — Anonymous (not verified)I couldn't agree more with the above post. Even if Liebermann would have manned-up long enough to stand with his original plan to made Medicare available to those 55 and older, so many people of that age could retire and let younger people take their place in the work force, thereby lowering the unemployment rate some. Regarding this issue, I can't find anything yet about whether that corporate job rip-off loophole got closed. That would be the second bill this year to have a provision taking a loophole from Korporate Amer'ka, the America that Southern Senators love so much, along with the DINO ones.
I agree with that post, too!
Thu, 12/23/2010 - 12:43 — Droslovinia (not verified)I agree with that post, too! Still, I have to wonder, if we're getting a "reduced" version of this bill passed, does that mean that we can now start hiring firefighters for "reduced" heroism? Think of the savings!
And add police; teachers
Thu, 12/23/2010 - 16:09 — Anonymous (not verified)And add police; teachers with "reduced" education, and public nurses with "reduced" qualifications, etc. FDR is rolling over in his grave. All for the sake of not taxing the rich: cut everything else! FDR asked the rich to cough up 90% of their earnings on Dec. 9, 1941. They did then: it was the patriotic thing to do, unless one wanted to side on that of the enemy.