Who helps the heroesFollow

Call me heartless, but why should these aid workers be compensated? If they were with an organization, it would be on that organization to provide coverage (and likely on the workers to buy into the coverage; it's insurance, right?). If they were volunteers, well, they volunteered.

I agree with the part about closing that tax loophole, but I'm really not sure why the workers should be compensated besides patriotism. I may have been missing something (like if the rescue workers were with the government... but then wouldn't they have government insurance?), as I only scanned the article, but it does seem like spending that should not necessarily be on the government to provide.

The conservative trifecta seems awfully quiet. Not one condemnation, guys?

Workers comp only covers the employee. What about the families? Shouldn't the person saving your life not have to worry about how he's going to pay for his kids hospital bills?

Maybe firefighters should start stealing from burning buildings.

Workers comp covers medical treatment for illness and also disability payment for someone if their injury causes them to not be able to work anymore.

So again, technically the family is covered. The individual who's been injured still receives a salary, essentially, to pay for Johnny's braces just like before they were injured.

Wait... what? You completely missed the point. The salary can't afford to pay for Johnny to have life saving surgery, regardless of whether or not he's physically able to work. Personally, I would want someone I trust with my life to not have to worry about his sick kids.

10.New York City police officers, firefighters, and sanitation workers who are covered under provisions of the New York State General Municipal Law. Uniformed police officers and firefighters in other municipalities may also be excluded;

§ 206-b. Exemption of benefits payable under blanket accident
insurance covering volunteer firemen. Not only shall the benefits
payable or allowable under any blanket accident insurance policy or
contract purchased (1) by a fire department pursuant to section four
thousand two hundred thirty-seven of the insurance law, or (2) by a
municipal corporation or fire district pursuant to any general, special
or local law, to insure active volunteer firemen against injury or death
resulting from bodily injuries sustained by such firemen in the
performance of their duties be exempt from execution as provided in
subsection (c) of section three thousand two hundred twelve of the
insurance law, but also any benefits payable or allowable under any such
policy or contract in the event of the death of an insured volunteer
fireman shall be exempt from execution for the purpose of satisfying any
debt or liability of the beneficiary designated in the policy or
contract, or in the event that the insured volunteer fireman is a minor
shall be exempt from execution for the purpose of satisfying any debt or
liability of the person to whom such benefits are payable pursuant to
subsection (b) of section four thousand two hundred thirty-seven of the
insurance law.

Stock Gbaji answer... "I haven't read it, but it's OBVIOUS!

Clearly, there's something about the bill which the Dems don't want to own by themselves.

I was thinking Thief, virus, and gbaji, but a conservative political pentagram sounds very intriguing.

If you put a radio inside it, it magically summons Rush Limbaugh through the same mechanism that normally summons demons.

After the Dems couldn't help but put in unrelated taxation code into the bill in an attempt to play on the need to help 9/11 first responders to push their own agenda. Who uses the plight of the sick and dying for their own political profit?
[...]
If they had simply written a bill that said: "We're going to provide X amount of health care assistance to 9/11 first responders, and we'll pay for it out of Y budget, or even via the creation of a temporary tariff on <something>", the GOP would have voted for it.