05 Dec '15 15:00>
Originally posted by normbenign"I've said from right after 9/11/2001 to the present, that responders to that event, and others who died in it, did not automatically deserve more favorable treatment than Americans who suffered injury or death in traffic accidents, or other terrorist events. "
I've said from right after 9/11/2001 to the present, that responders to that event, and others who died in it, did not automatically deserve more favorable treatment than Americans who suffered injury or death in traffic accidents, or other terrorist events.
Because of the large numbers of victims, Americans who are generally a compassionate group fe ...[text shortened]... to traffic accidents and crime reports die and are already given substantial insurance coverage.
yes, you were an ashole then as well.
your lame nirvana fallacy aside (all americans deserve healthcare, so if you can't give them to all because you're such a poor country, nobody should get it), 9/11 responders are in total about 30 thousand. you are perfectly capable of covering their medical expenses. these are 30 thousand people who didn't watch 9/11 from the comfort of their couches like you did. these are 30 thousand people who worked day and night in horrible conditions (despite Bush assuring them the sites are safe) just for a chance to save one more american. are you telling them they must die of cancer for their efforts because america is incapable of providing universal healthcare?
what about veterans? WWII, Koreea, Vietnam, Golf, they aren't deserving of medical care as well?
"First responders, in regular house fires, as well as cops responding to traffic accidents and crime reports die and are already given substantial insurance coverage."
those are cops and firemen who might be covered. first responders were not all firemen. some were just decent americans. they are those who when presented with a tragedy behave differently than you.