If trillions are spent on one 9/11, why argue over the cost of 15 annual 9/11s?

Because the victims of 9/11 were innocent, hardworking Americans. The victims of the healthcare system are the poor, and therefore lazy. They could get health insurance if they would just work a little harder, the freeloaders! Don't use MY earnings to help the lazy and poor, dammit!

Lets eat the poor! rar!! How dare they die without contributing anything to society! They must be useful for something.

http://www.alcoholalert.com/drunk-dr...tatistics.html
http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_stat...ts/fast_facts/
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/alcohol.htm
http://www.notsoboringlife.com/rambl...idental-death/
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwr...cid=ss6001a1_w

Pick your poison. They are all preventable. Which do we focus on? There are even more as well.

And as we approach the 10th anniversary of that day of infamy, an event that benefitted certain well connected people to the tune of $billions, let us not forget the first responders, those people who rushed towards danger to help those in need, who got summarily shafted .... by elements within the same powers-that-be (that got so rich from 9/11 and the paranoia and maximum security obsession that has reigned since).

Approximately 1000 people have died from ill health contracted from inhaling the toxic brew of dust. That number will undoubtedly increase as the years go by, as long term diseases take hold, perhaps even an epidemic of mesothelial cancers. A significant proportion of the deceased had no health insurance, and of those that did, the health insurance corporate parasites weaseled their way out of denying coverage, as usual.

It took almost 10 YEARS for the slimebags in Congress to pass the emasculated Zagroda Act.... which has been described as "well, it's better than nothing". However, there is no cancer coverage as a result of the power of the insurance (?!!) lobby. The fate of the 9/11 first responders parallels that of many combat veterans. Once they've done their duty, they then get told, in effect, to "go fuck yourselves.

There are problems with that study. The number is not accurate.

We are in total agreement here.

1. The use of 9/11 to push your national health insurance agenda is despicable.

2. Defense of the nation is Constitutionally mandated. Can you show me how providing healthcare is Constitutionally mandated?

3. Who exactly are the greedy fucks that "orchestrate" this tragedy?

4. Should the government ban everything that kills people? It's the same logic. I don't here you complaining about the greedy government fucks that make billions of tobacco taxes....a product that kills thousands a year.

Here's an excellent video of a privileged few of some of Americas laziest people receiving Ron Pauls CharityCare- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUv3o2H3pYw

I'm glad to see the left here has decided which talking point will try to replace discussions about ending world wars and battling global terrorism for this year's 9/11 anniversary.

I guess now that the Liberal-in-Chief is fighting wars for oil in the Arab world, it's uncomfortable to discuss such things.

How about gun ownership? How many does the easy availability of guns kill each year?

The US is just a fucked up place. Because of people claiming their "rights", the fact is, you're far more likely to die a crime or health related death in the US than in any other civilized nation. In this context, "rights" are sometimes wrong, if what you want is the right not to die.

What's despicable is opposing a national health care "agenda". You're blind to how well things are working around the world. Yeah, you'll scream "waiting lists" and "rationed care", but to many in the US, who have "no care", you just show exactly how much you "don't care". Waiting lists and rationed care are better than the current US system. You are simply EVIL for preferring the way things are right now.

What is wrong with me owning a gun(s) ?
How does that adversely affect ANYone else ?
Why do you even CARE if I own a gun(s) ?

If things are working so well in the UK, why are they rioting?

Gun ownership kills nobody. Gun Crimes however do, as do gun accidents. Owning a gun means you own a gun, not that your gun was used to kill someone.

No, they are not. And it's a false dilemma.

I'm perfectly fine with people having guns, but this argument right here is why I don't have a gun for self-defense.

I have a sword. Because it's 2011. No one is going to use a sword for offense when the gun has been around for centuries. I can't be incriminated or accused of going around slashing people. But a sword for self-defense? It's pretty darn effective.

I don't take it anywhere because I don't need to take it anywhere (and you probably couldn't just carry around a katana on your hip); it's for defense at home.

Just make sure you don't bring that sword to a gunfight! ... It's not nearly as useful there!

These people are plain parasites that suck off innocent and hard working people.They are lazy and are plain spoiled by Government handouts meaning the ones who don't give a dam!

You are smart and have good input about various topics I see you answer on. Please don't denigrate the United States.Thanks Marv

You just got sucked in by a sarcastic post. You are being serious, he was not.

I know we disagree re. most political topics, especially in regards to the dissemination of information that brings institutions of the establishment into disrepute.. but here is an incident that surely everyone can criticize, if they dare: the cold, callous, conniving, bald-faced, deliberate, systematic abuse by governmental bodies against the professional first responders (NYPD, FDNY and paramedics), and thousands of ordinary people who volunteered to help in the rescue effort in the wake of the attack... and the entire population of Lower Manhattan and other places that were affected by the clouds of toxic dust and fumes that enveloped the area until January 2002, when the underground fires were finally extinguished.

Why were these people shafted so badly, and continue to be royally screwed? Why, for the last 10 years, has Congress been so keen to pour $trillions into a series of wars overseas which in reality had nothing to do with 9/11, caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people who had nothing to do with 9/11, including 5000 of our own troops... while bickering like 7th grader schoolchildren about a paltry sum for first responders' health issues, an amount that would have been swallowed up in a couple of weeks of war funding and corporate welfare? Is it a case of "just because they can".. ie the mindset of the sociopath? Both democrats and republicans are equally guilty of criminal neglect....

On a parallel... does anyone recall the disgusting treatment of US troops by their paymasters in the Pentagon when the Iraq war started? Probably not.. these issues were predictably ignored by the corporate media. Once in Iraq, our soldiers were all but forgotten about... while so many back home were waving flags and exhorting the call to "support out troops", what was really happening? Water supplies etc. were short on the ground, troops were even being supplemented by care packages sent by charities and family members. Essential equipment and body armor was not forthcoming for months. Humvees lacked essential armor against IEDs. Back home, the families of combat troops in Iraq and Afghanistan had their benefits slashed. There were even incidents of troops being electrocuted as a result of faulty wiring done by Halliburton at exorbitant cost to the taxpayers...and far more similar crap.

Why cannot we get our priorities in order? Or are people now considered of lesser standing than corporations?

The economic impact of 9/11 was measured as 1 trillion dollars worth of economic damage wrought in one day. The cost of 15 annual 9/11's would mean the entire economy would be destroyed in 9 months.

Also read your own link....


These people aren't dying because they break an arm or have a cut that is untreated. They are smoking, drinking and eating themselves to death and they don't have a team of medical professionals attempting to prevent their death by feeding them pills and lecturing them to stop killing themselves via their health choices. As the label notes, the causes are preventable and I suppose we should all go broke trying to change their behaviors and their minds.

Now this twisted pretzel of logic is done.

"We must all be alike. Not everyone born free and equal, as the Constitution says, but everyone made equal. Each man the image of every other; then all are happy, for there are no mountains to make them cower, to judge themselves against." -- passage from Fahrenheit 451

Yes and when Iraq has oil they want to drill, extract and sell to pay for that health care, they don't have their leader putting a moratorium on the drilling and then giving fat government funds to "green" companies who then go bankrupt, who send the jobs overseas or who just cannot provide utopia.

This point has only been mentioned here dozens of times to you. All your fantasy countries and their policies never have problems with energy production related to oil. Hell even Cuba is drilling in the Gulf. Denmark, Canada, all those wonderful countries have no problem fighting to drill in the Arctic circle. Meanwhile here, we've nothing but regulation and litigation to put a stop to any attempts to use our land to generate wealth.

Again...agreed. They've been screwed.


We obviously disagree on the wars, but spending more for treatment of those who had 9/11-related health problems shouldn't have even been an argument.


I don't know that I'd call their treatment "disgusting." I think that the Pentagon was stretching its resources, which include people. One of the problems was that we really weren't prepared to undertake the operation we did. The Iraq war is proof positive that Rumsfeld's lighter, quicker military concept doesn't work in such a situation. We didn't have enough armor, humvees, equipment, nor personnel. Tours were extended and supplies ran short. I put this on Rumsfeld quite honestly. My opinion is that the war would have gone FAR better for all involved if we did what we did in the first Gulf War, which was to use a heavy footprint with 400,000 troops. We also should have had a publicly announced timetable for transition/rebuilding. I think the success of the surge is proof that more troops were needed to resist and overcome the insurgency.

(Ignoring the perceived merits and rationale for the war, or lack thereof), committing the nation to war is one of the most serious/fundamental decisions that any politician/president will make in his/her political career. Advice is sought from the generals, other senior career military personnel, intelligence agencies, civilian experts in many disciplines, and so forth. Surely President Bush and cabinet must have noted the advice from Gen. Shinseki and others, that to bring a war in Iraq to a decisive conclusion in which the coalition prevailed both militarily, but also winning the respect of the Iraqi people and preventing the rise of guerilla groups and insurgents would have taken, as you mentioned re. the Gulf War 1991, at least 400,000 troops. I recall that General Shinseki specified as many as 700,000 troops for the job in hand.... the 1991 Gulf War did not involve ground forces in the Northern half of Iraq. For that advice, Shinseki was unceremoniously put out to pasture. The presence of that many troops on the ground would have taken care of preventing guerilla groups from forming, by securing all ammunition depots, bomb caches and any other sources of arms, ammunition and explosives, liaising with the Iraqi police, dealing with former Iraqi Republican Guard and other branches if the Iraqi army, and getting the country back to normal ASAP after the initial invasion. The language barrier was undoubtedly a large problem, but one would have thought, that with an agenda in the works for waging war against as many as 7 Arabic speaking nations, there would have been employment/deployment for plenty of folk fluent in both English and Arabic in order to supervise and liaise with local government, law enforcement and just being able to have meaningful communications with the Iraqi people. I am curious as how many of our troops knew any Arabic in 2003... probably very, very few.

I know its easy to say all this in "armchaired hindsight", but surely the "enemy" was not the entire population of Iraq, but Saddam Hussein's military and privileged elites. By rights, the job could have been done in two months, as per Gulf War. Instead of losing 5000 troops and still counting, perhaps the total US casualty count may have been less than 200... or in a worse case... lasting say, four months.. where the fatality count was still less than 300. Iraqi civilian deaths? Lets not even go there.

Rumsfeld's and his supporters' ideas prevailed. A Secretary of Defense surely knows about military planning, and what is required... thats why he's the top guy in uniform. Dick Cheney himself knew that the consequence of invading Iraq was fraught with hazard .... doing the job properly... as you mentioned, using the heaviest footprint that the military was capable of providing... was common sense.

To look at it cynically, it almost looks as if Rumsfeld and company engineered the war to be long lasting, and thus maintaining a public justification for keeping the troops there, on account of the chaos and violence. By doing it "on the cheap", it turned out to be an endless $multi-trillion operation.

Now its Obama's turn to make a dog's dinner of mid-east policy.

Re. the "Surge"... the US casualty rate, IED attacks etc. were already starting to tail off when "The Surge"® happened... I did read that many Iraqi militants were just giving up on the idea that violence was going to get the US to withdraw, and they also wanted a normal life back. BTW, up until the "Surge"®, there were a number of similar (but slightly smaller) troop surges which did little or nothing to halt or arrest the insurgency.

But in general I agree with your comment.