Congressional 9/11 Health Bill

The 911 Health Bill now being discussed in Congress is loaded with innuendo, misinformation, abusive compassion, and opportunism.

Let's start with some realism.

911 Responders to the World Trade Center disaster and other less significant disasters, have special conditions under which they work. This is contrary to normal public employment, under which OSHA has said very specific rules for private employers. However, none 11 hazards are essentially little different from those to which our military are subjected. In both cases, those people performing hazardous work are volunteers. In volunteering, they automatically accepted the risks of the job.

This is not to say that we should not give our 911 responders and our military the reasonable best of safety equipment, health benefits, and life insurance. However, it is unreasonable to expect that the public should write a blank check for every claimant who comes down the pike.

In discussing the Twin Towers Disaster, there is much talk of toxic substances. The uninitiated public is generally fearful of any reference to toxic substances, which is why promoters of the present congressional bill use the term. However, we really need to define what the toxic substances are. Are they asbestos? Carbon monoxide gas? What other? How do we know they are toxic? We have experts who study toxicity of materials and generally compare death or illness from exposure with the similar distresses of the general public. The average doctor is not an expert in diagnosing mesothelioma or asbestosis. Yet, this is necessary for determining whether a particular claimant has a justification for his claim.

It was my understanding that the reason that the Twin Towers collapsed was because the steel structure was not adequately protected from fire. Asbestos had been previously used for this in skyscraper construction, but the EPA had radically exaggerated claims of asbestos toxicity, such that deficient materials was used in the Twin Towers construction. If this is true, what is the justifications for claims relating to asbestos toxicity?

There are a lot of similar questions that need to be answered before there is a general consideration of significant money handouts to claimants. It is obvious that a person who died from being hit by a falling beam has some right to compensation, but we are not talking about that. We are talking about people who are still alive and claiming to be disabled. This is not a new area for consideration. Insurance companies have been handling disability insurance for years and have much experience with rules in determining justifiable disability payments. We should be using this expertise.

The bottom line is that 911 responders and military should have special consideration over other government employees and the public in general, with respect to health and life insurance. Private companies have supplied this benefit for years for hazardous work.

For the bill now in Congress, it should be stalled. A commission of toxicity, health, accounting, and insurance experts should be set up to define the rules of providing health and life insurance for 911 Responders, and which will separate fact from innuendo. The rules should basically establish who qualifies, the reasons for compensation and the amount of compensation, within the limits of weeding out opportunists, non-performing volunteers, and the public in general. Subsequent payments should be made retroactive, within limits, and all of this under the recognition that 911 Responders are volunteers in their jobs and have accepted the job risks.