Ron Paul and 159 Congress People Vote Against Healthcare for Sick 9/11 Heroes

Well, I am absolutely stunned. I cannot believe that Ron Paul voted against this!

The following names are the people in Congress that voted AGAINST helping the 9/11 1st Responders with health care. There are about 900 dead responders since the attacks 9 years ago, and tens of thousands more sick and dying. When everybody was running away from Ground Zero, these people were running in to save as many people as they can.

visibility911.com...

sourced from here:
www.facebook.com...

And I originally reported on the passing of this bill here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

So in disbelief, I went and tracked down the roll call on this bill, which is here:
clerk.house.gov...

And it is true. Paul's name appears in the third column near the top under the NOES.

So, does anyone have any information on WHY he would vote no on this critical bill? If I had to guess, it probably has to do with the inability of the government to pay for it. I can't see why else he could possibly vote no...unless he felt maybe that it wasn't enough?

Total shock here...help.

reply to post by TrueAmerican


It has to do with creditability. Ron Paul will not vote for anything not specifically addressed and allowed for within the Constitution. Ron Paul believes it is not the Federal Governments job to fund all these things but the States job. In this regard, States should determine their contributions to public safety and healthcare, including how to pay for it and who to tax to make it happen. All powers not delegated to the Federal Government are reserved to the States and the people of those States respectively.

Another possibility is what else may be buried in this bill . They love to attach stuff that would never pass on there own to a bill like this one. It would be worth looking into.

OK, thanks. Both good answers.

I dunno though- aren't there some things that go beyond the ability of a single state to handle, when the issue in question is clearly of national, and international concern? This is one case where I could have seen Paul make an exception to his uncompromising constitutional voting.

After all, if it hadn't of been for the EPA lying through their teeth that the air was safe, a lot of those people might still be alive.

As to the issue of pork in the bill, I didn't see anything except maybe the possibility that some of this money may go to foreign entities. I know he wouldn't like that.

Originally posted by bluemooone2
Another possibility is what else may be buried in this bill . They love to attach stuff that would never pass on there own to a bill like this one. It would be worth looking into.

edit on 19-10-2010 by bluemooone2 because: grammer mistake

Absolutely, and granted, I haven't read the entire 100+ page bill, that would be my first suspicion in this case. Its part of the political game and that's especially true at this point in the election cycle. Its all about putting your opponent into a lose-lose situation. They take an otherwise popular bill that can easily garner bipartisan support and load it up with a provision or two that's highly offensive to their opponent's base. It gives their opponents a choice: they can either anger their base or anger the political center.

Its garbage politics 101 and it happens all the time. Again, I'm not entirely sure that's what's happening with that vote, but its so common it wouldn't surprise me one bit.

After all, if it hadn't of been for the EPA lying through their teeth that the air was safe, a lot of those people might still be alive.

Shouldn't these people be suing the EPA, not asking for handouts? And, while it may seem hash...it's the job they signed up for. I still can't see 9/11 as a national problem either, the world trade center was blown up(ie a symbol of bankers and globalization). Don't let bankers build "towers of babylon" in your back yard...heck its not like they didn't try blowing it up before on several occations.

Ny'ers should look out for their own, they tax enough they shouldn't need any government teet.

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
So, does anyone have any information on WHY he would vote no on this critical bill?

well maybe reading the entire bill might hold a clue. Here's the pork
that Paul probably didn't approve of

"The revenue offset targets “treaty shopping” where a foreign company in a country without a U.S. treaty routes income through a third intermediary company with a treaty to take advantage of the intermediary company’s tax reductions.

the bill's small print also legalizes foreign countries without
a trade treaty to launder money out of the US through
a 3rd company who has a treaty and not pay taxes.

I'd vote no on it too when they add all that other crap in.

Another consideration here is that First Responders already had excellent Insurance and Disability Benefits to begin with. Any illness or injury would be covered already. Have these people already been compensated? Is this Bill just to buy votes in the imminent elections? Are there Earmarks attached? Stay tuned Bat Fans!

reply to post by boondock-saint


Just found that myself. Imagine that! The old rabbit in the hat trick.

Originally posted by vor78
Its garbage politics 101 and it happens all the time. Again, I'm not entirely sure that's what's happening with that vote, but its so common it wouldn't surprise me one bit.

Yep, you just have to look at the Obama Healthcare bill. It's filled with pork to con Congress-weenies into voting for it. I mean, what does school loans have to do with healthcare?

Originally posted by Blaine91555
reply to post by boondock-saint

 

Just found that myself. Imagine that! The old rabbit in the hat trick.

so just for a moment put the healthcare portion
on the back burner.

What just happened was:
268 members of Congress just passed
a bill that would give foreign companies
a legal tax loophole worth Billions of lost
revenue for the US say over 10 years.

while 160 including Dr. Paul voted NOT
to give them a tax loophole.

Good job Dr. Paul

i heard this bill will also offer the reimbursments to illegal aliens, who were only harmed by breaking the law,

reply to post by boondock-saint


typical propaganda trick,

lets design a bill that gives all single mothers scholarships to college for their children, and then silently sneak into the bill a clause which will permit and legalise gang murders and drug dealing, then if anyone votes against it we will say they are against education!!

just a hypothetical example of the same tactic used here

pathetic that our government is resorting to such ridiculous tricks and lies.

Originally posted by boondock-saint

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
So, does anyone have any information on WHY he would vote no on this critical bill?

well maybe reading the entire bill might hold a clue. Here's the pork
that Paul probably didn't approve of

"The revenue offset targets “treaty shopping” where a foreign company in a country without a U.S. treaty routes income through a third intermediary company with a treaty to take advantage of the intermediary company’s tax reductions.

the bill's small print also legalizes foreign countries without
a trade treaty to launder money out of the US through
a 3rd company who has a treaty and not pay taxes.

I'd vote no on it too when they add all that other crap in.

Link???

I wanna see something else

Thanks

Originally posted by Janky Red
Link???
I wanna see something else
Thanks

oops sorry forgot
I got that info from here

www.szone.us...

Originally posted by boondock-saint

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
So, does anyone have any information on WHY he would vote no on this critical bill?

well maybe reading the entire bill might hold a clue. Here's the pork
that Paul probably didn't approve of

"The revenue offset targets “treaty shopping” where a foreign company in a country without a U.S. treaty routes income through a third intermediary company with a treaty to take advantage of the intermediary company’s tax reductions.

the bill's small print also legalizes foreign countries without
a trade treaty to launder money out of the US through
a 3rd company who has a treaty and not pay taxes.

I'd vote no on it too when they add all that other crap in.

What you explained above is not "pork" from what I can gather, it is a way to pay for this bill by allowing an
intermediary to capture tax revenue FOR the government, by allowing the intermediaries the ability to act as a surrogate for foreign business's. It is better described as deregulation of tax code - creates a new avenue for private profit and tax (funding) based upon that new avenue

It appears the reason Paul and many didn't vote for this is the anti entitlement attitude

from the link

But such a program has been opposed by many Republicans, who raised concerns about creating a new federal entitlement to provide health benefits at a time when the federal government is running a huge budget deficit

On the floor, Representative Joe L. Barton, a Republican from Texas, who opposed the bill, argued that it was unnecessary given the fact that Congress had created programs like the Victim Compensation Fund.

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
OK, thanks. Both good answers.

I dunno though- aren't there some things that go beyond the ability of a single state to handle, when the issue in question is clearly of national, and international concern? This is one case where I could have seen Paul make an exception to his uncompromising constitutional voting.

After all, if it hadn't of been for the EPA lying through their teeth that the air was safe, a lot of those people might still be alive.

As to the issue of pork in the bill, I didn't see anything except maybe the possibility that some of this money may go to foreign entities. I know he wouldn't like that.

Well I have been reading the bill -

I really cannot see the problem with the method of funding, it actually opens up a new avenue for business, for new business (verb)

But such a program has been opposed by many Republicans, who raised concerns about creating a new federal entitlement to provide health benefits at a time when the federal government is running a huge budget deficit

On the floor, Representative Joe L. Barton, a Republican from Texas, who opposed the bill, argued that it was unnecessary given the fact that Congress had created programs like the Victim Compensation Fund.

911blogger.com...

IT appears it is a moral/ideological issue -

At least the GOP isn't acting like a pack of RINOS

I am glad the liberals are liberals what ever the case, on moral grounds; these people deserve extra assistance IMO