Simply not true, this bill is very specific in regards to directing funds at helping the veterans. That's why it passed the house with overwhelming support from both parties. Same people who voted for it, voted against it now for some unknown reason which doesn't make any sense outside of partisan politics.
Maybe by the articles that you read that are reporting on the bill but these bills are almost never simple and specific when you read the actual bills themselves. Most of us don't even have the time to read through them because they are so lengthy and convoluted.
I'm just going to go off of common sense that tells me these "obvious" bills being voted against are usually because there's other not so obvious parts to them that the media doesn't report on. I don't think that either side are just being big meanies when it comes to voting against bills that seem to outwardly make perfect sense to everyone because the devil is always in the details. Kinda like the Patriot Act.
1.– the Veterans Affairs Department would consider a veteran with any of 23 conditions, as varied as brain cancer and hypertension, who was deployed to a combat zone during the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan automatically eligible for care at government cost.
By contrast, under current law, the veteran must demonstrate that his or her illness was the result of military service in order to qualify for benefits.
2.an expansion of benefits for veterans exposed to radiation during the Cold War, an expansion of the list of illnesses linked to the use of Agent Orange during the Vietnam War and an extension of benefits to Vietnam War-era veterans who served in Thailand, Laos, Cambodia and Guam and may have been exposed to Agent Orange there.
3. greatly expand the VA’s physical footprint by setting up 31 new, major medical clinics across 19 states while hiring thousands more claims processors (one of my favorite provisions)
Just coving those burn pit veterans right?
In February, the Senate passed by voice vote a narrower version of the bill that the Congressional Budget Office said would cost $1 billion over a decade. It would expand health care to more veterans who served in areas with known toxic exposure but wouldn’t provide disability compensation.
House Democrats said that Senate bill wouldn’t help enough veterans and declined to take it up.
Democrats argued it was not necessary to offset the cost with new taxes or fees, or budget cuts elsewhere, because of ill veterans’ pressing needs, and they derided the Senate’s original bill as stingy.
“It’s the cost of war,” Speaker Nancy Pelosi said
yep...just taking care of those exposed to toxic fumes in Iraq and Afghanistan.......
Yep, if they really wanted to just help veterans, they'd put out a simple bill that just plainly helped veterans.
Instead they fill these bills with so much bullshit, that people wind up voting against it to block the bullshit and then the other side points and blames them for hating veterans.
These bills only need to be 20 billion or so and they balloon up to 300 billion with all the extra bullshit added to them.
The Government is second only to drug addicts when it comes to the least efficient ways to spend money. If you want to piss your money away and have the vast majority of it go into the wrong hands, then let the government spend it for you.
Maybe by the articles that you read that are reporting on the bill but these bills are almost never simple and specific when you read the actual bills themselves. Most of us don't even have the time to read through them because they are so lengthy and convoluted.
I'm just going to go off of common sense that tells me these "obvious" bills being voted against are usually because there's other not so obvious parts to them that the media doesn't report on. I don't think that either side are just being big meanies when it comes to voting against bills that seem to outwardly make perfect sense to everyone because the devil is always in the details. Kinda like the Patriot Act.
This part specifically addressed funding, clear cut (I already posted it, so I'll use spoilers):
Ҥ 324.Cost of War Toxic Exposures Fund
“(a) Establishment.—There is hereby established in the Treasury of the United States an account to be known as the ‘Cost of War Toxic Exposures Fund’ (the ‘Fund’), to be administered by the Secretary.
“(b) Deposits.—There shall be deposited in the Fund such amounts as may be appropriated to the Fund pursuant to subsection (c).
“(c) Authorization Of Appropriations.—There is authorized to be appropriated to the Fund for fiscal year 2023 and each subsequent fiscal year such sums as are necessary to increase funding, over the fiscal year 2021 level, for investment in—
“(1) the delivery of veterans’ health care associated with exposure to environmental hazards in the active military, naval, air, or space service in programs administered by the Under Secretary for Health;
“(2) any expenses incident to the delivery of veterans’ health care and benefits associated with exposure to environmental hazards in the active military, naval, air, or space service, including administrative expenses, such as information technology and claims processing and appeals, and excluding leases as authorized or approved under section 8104 of this title; and
“(3) medical and other research relating to exposure to environmental hazards."
There is no bullshit, to fluff or addons, it all goes directly to providing veteran's treatment.
What are you babbling about? The bill was approved by the house by an overwhelming majority and Toomeys contention has nothing to do with "200billion extra". There was no change in spending after the bill was passed in the house and Republicans flipped. To that point, why no hesitation on nearly a trillion a year in military spending? Don't see any no votes there or concerns when it comes to warmongering and OCO spending with absolutely no oversight. You, and they, are concern trolling.
1.– the Veterans Affairs Department would consider a veteran with any of 23 conditions, as varied as brain cancer and hypertension, who was deployed to a combat zone during the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan automatically eligible for care at government cost.
By contrast, under current law, the veteran must demonstrate that his or her illness was the result of military service in order to qualify for benefits.
2.an expansion of benefits for veterans exposed to radiation during the Cold War, an expansion of the list of illnesses linked to the use of Agent Orange during the Vietnam War and an extension of benefits to Vietnam War-era veterans who served in Thailand, Laos, Cambodia and Guam and may have been exposed to Agent Orange there.
3. greatly expand the VA’s physical footprint by setting up 31 new, major medical clinics across 19 states while hiring thousands more claims processors (one of my favorite provisions)
Just coving those burn pit veterans right?
In February, the Senate passed by voice vote a narrower version of the bill that the Congressional Budget Office said would cost $1 billion over a decade. It would expand health care to more veterans who served in areas with known toxic exposure but wouldn’t provide disability compensation.
House Democrats said that Senate bill wouldn’t help enough veterans and declined to take it up.
Democrats argued it was not necessary to offset the cost with new taxes or fees, or budget cuts elsewhere, because of ill veterans’ pressing needs, and they derided the Senate’s original bill as stingy.
“It’s the cost of war,” Speaker Nancy Pelosi said
yep...just taking care of those exposed to toxic fumes in Iraq and Afghanistan.......
Yes, administrative costs, including medical facilities and staff, are necessary in order to process the claims and give health benefits through the VA. What is the argument you are making? The horrors of providing healthcare to veterans exposed to radiation as well? The bill is about toxic exposure, it's the literal title, which includes radiation as well as exposure from burn pits. Take a moment to reflect on what you're arguing against here.
this is just a marketing ploy for his new show on Apple+. it's part of his contractual agreement to do publicity stunts like this in order to up the subscription numbers to the service. i'm sure he'll be on Colbert or Kimmel in the coming weeks too, to round out the advertising campaign.
this is just a marketing ploy for his new show on Apple+. it's part of his contractual agreement to do publicity stunts like this in order to up the subscription numbers to the service. i'm sure he'll be on Colbert or Kimmel in the coming weeks too, to round out the advertising campaign.
This part specifically addressed funding, clear cut (I already posted it, so I'll use spoilers):
Ҥ 324.Cost of War Toxic Exposures Fund
“(a) Establishment.—There is hereby established in the Treasury of the United States an account to be known as the ‘Cost of War Toxic Exposures Fund’ (the ‘Fund’), to be administered by the Secretary.
“(b) Deposits.—There shall be deposited in the Fund such amounts as may be appropriated to the Fund pursuant to subsection (c).
“(c) Authorization Of Appropriations.—There is authorized to be appropriated to the Fund for fiscal year 2023 and each subsequent fiscal year such sums as are necessary to increase funding, over the fiscal year 2021 level, for investment in—
“(1) the delivery of veterans’ health care associated with exposure to environmental hazards in the active military, naval, air, or space service in programs administered by the Under Secretary for Health;
“(2) any expenses incident to the delivery of veterans’ health care and benefits associated with exposure to environmental hazards in the active military, naval, air, or space service, including administrative expenses, such as information technology and claims processing and appeals, and excluding leases as authorized or approved under section 8104 of this title; and
“(3) medical and other research relating to exposure to environmental hazards."
There is no bullshit, to fluff or addons, it all goes directly to providing veteran's treatment.
What are you babbling about? The bill was approved by the house by an overwhelming majority and Toomeys contention has nothing to do with "200billion extra". There was no change in spending after the bill was passed in the house and Republicans flipped. To that point, why no hesitation on a trillion a year in military spending? Don't see any no votes there or concerns when it comes to warmongering and OCO spending with absolutely no oversight. You, and they, are concern trolling.
Yes, administrative costs, including medical facilities and staff, are necessary in order to process the claims and give health benefits through the VA. What is the argument you are making? The horrors of providing healthcare to veterans exposed to radiation as well? The bill is about toxic exposure, it's the literal title, which includes radiation as well as exposure from burn pits. Take a moment to reflect on what you're arguing against here.
I'm not "playing a hand". I already showed you where the senate passed a bill worth $1 billion to pay for the medical care of these veterans affected by toxic fumes in Iraq and Afghanistan. I also showed you were the house got the bill and decided that it was "stingy" and wanted to spend $300 billion plus on a bunch other stuff. When the bill went back to the senate, they didn't pass it. Which was quickly followed by a bunch of democrats, with the press conference already staged, saying republicans must hate veterans. And you fell for it again.
this is just a marketing ploy for his new show on Apple+. it's part of his contractual agreement to do publicity stunts like this in order to up the subscription numbers to the service. i'm sure he'll be on Colbert or Kimmel in the coming weeks too, to round out the advertising campaign.
He's been involved with the VA and pushing for this bill for years, way before his Apple show. He was at the capital two years ago because of this cause.
"Since retiring from television in 2015, comedian Jon Stewart's most prominent work has been on behalf of Sept. 11 first responders — people who got sick after working in the toxic wreckage of the World Trade Center in New York. Many credit his celebrity testimony in 2019 with pushing Congress to preserve the Sept. 11 Victims Compensation fund.
While he was doing that lobbying, Stewart met Rosie Torres, who advocates for troops who were exposed to toxic burn pits in Afghanistan and Iraq. Torres says she heard Stewart say it took just five seconds for police and firefighters to respond on Sept. 11.
"That's the amount of time Jon ... took to respond to our ask" to lend his voice to burn pit veterans, says Torres.
Torres' husband, Le Roy, served in Balad, Iraq, where U.S. military contractors burned trash with jet fuel in open pits bigger than football fields. He was too sick to travel to Washington this week, but on Tuesday, she joined Stewart, burn pit veterans, advocates and lawmakers for a press conference on the steps of the Capitol.
Stewart didn't think he'd be back in Washington after his last testimony.
"We thought it was done," Stewart said, "but it turns out that the veterans in Iraq and Afghanistan are suffering the same illnesses and the same toxic exposures because of the actions of our own government."
I'm not "playing a hand". I already showed you where the senate passed a bill worth $1 billion to pay for the medical care of these veterans affected by toxic fumes in Iraq and Afghanistan. I also showed you were the house got the bill and decided that it was "stingy" and wanted to spend $300 billion plus on a bunch other stuff. When the bill went back to the senate, they didn't pass it. Which was quickly followed by a bunch of democrats, with the press conference already staged, saying republicans must hate veterans. And you fell for it again.
Link to the bill. A single billion wouldn't make a dent in the healthcare costs over the next few decades for these millions of veterans. It's fantasy, these things costs money. And no, there weren't a "bunch of other stuff". The funding paragraphs are in this thread and the bill is linked. You argued that veterans exposed to radiation during their service somehow shouldn't be provided healthcare in a bill that's about toxics. You also missed the part where, when it passed in the House with the exact same funds allocated, it was passed by several Republicans who flipped this time and voted against it for no reason other than seemingly politics. AND, you never replied to the criticism of concern trolling when almost a trillion dollars a year is spent on war with little oversight and zero complaints, yet 300 billion over a decade for veterans sick and dying who put their lives on the line is a bridge too far.
When confronted, you respond with "cry more". Yes, I think you did show what level you're operating at here and I have nothing more to say.
Link to the bill. A single billion wouldn't make a dent in the healthcare costs over the next few decades for these millions of veterans. It's fantasy, these things costs money. And no, there weren't a "bunch of other stuff". The funding paragraphs are in this thread and the bill is linked. You argued that veterans exposed to radiation during their service somehow shouldn't be provided healthcare in a bill that's about toxics. You also missed the part where, when it passed in the House with the exact same funds allocated, it was passed by several Republicans who flipped this time and voted against it for no reason other than seemingly politics. AND, you never replied to the criticism of concern trolling when almost a trillion dollars a year is spent on war with little oversight and zero complaints, yet 300 billion over a decade for veterans sick and dying who put their lives on the line is a bridge too far.
When confronted, you respond with "cry more". Yes, I think you did show what level you're operating at here and I have nothing more to say.
lol at there now being "millions of service people" who inhaled smoke from burn piles in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Deputy Executive Director of policy and procedures Laurine Carson told the House in a 2020 hearing that, of the 12,582 veterans who filed claims for these conditions, only 2,828 were approved"
Here is what your boy Chuck Schumer said about the Senate version when it passed.
A previous version of the bill had passed the Senate in June by an 84 to 14 vote. At the time, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-New York) called it the “greatest advance in veterans’ health care in decades.”
Maybe the House shouldn't have loaded it down with a bunch of other shit.
He seems like a legit good guy who's been at the forefront of getting 9/11 responders the help they need even when he was a high profile lefty on tv. He also tries his best to be fair and objective. And that's sorely lacking with most talking heads.
Violence/Genocide: Do not condone violence or genocide on a person or group of people. You are free to attack a person or groups ideas but you are crossing the line when calling for violence. This will be heavily enforced in threads with breaking news involving victims.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
