9/11 "First Responder" Health Bill: Orwell's "1984" Lives On in Our Government

You remember George Orwell's "1984". It was about control: people who want to control you by (among other things) convincing you black is white, perverting the meaning of words so that words mean nothing. They become mere instruments of propaganda, as the government plays on the emotions of people, using repetitive lies, to conceal the truth at all costs. Yes, Orwell was talking about the Communists and the Soviet Union, but he just as well might have been talking about the modern Democratic Party.

Yes, the "Dream Act" (where the only real "dream" involved is Harry Reid's dream of Hispanics--including the newly added citizens--who will vote Democratic). Yes, "comprehensive reform"--used in bill after bill, and often adopted as a phrase by the REPUBLICAN establishment)--is another Orwellian phrase. But the example which is the subject of this article is the "9/11 First Responders Health Act"--sometimes (slightly more accurately) called the "9/11 Responders Health Act". The confusion is deliberately Orwellian, as the bill is by no means limited to people within the ordinary meaning of "first responders". I have heard members of the media refer to the bill both ways, and the public is INTENDED to get the deceptiove idea that this bill only refers to police, firefighters and similar people who responded to the 9/11 attack. Not true.

What, exactly, does this bill--being sold with Orwellian terminology--do? Who knows for sure. Unless you go through the agony of reading every word of the bill (chainging all of the time), you can't know. I can assure you it does NOT refer only to "first responders". Even "responders" is Orwellian, unless you really want to call construction workers and volunteers "responders" who were involved in the cleanup and other non-rescue attempts to deal with the collapse of the Twin Toweers. Now these are surely people who mostly did a noble thing--except, that is, for their unending campaign for more money--but they hardly fit the image of the "heroes" Democrats are trying to use to SELL this bill in the tradition of "1984".

The reason you have no chance of knowing what is really in the bill is that both Democrats and the mainstream media (including--as is often the case--Fox News) do not want you to know. Have you heard the media (any of them) describe WHO gets WHAT benefits from this bill. It was a 7 BILLION dollar bill--now "reduced" to 6 billion. It is obvious that some serious money is involved in this bill, and not just health care for a few "heroes". In fact, the 1 BILLION dollar reduction in the cost of the revised bill tells you how Orwellian this bill has to be. I have not yet heard any media outlet describe what has been CUT from this bill, and why it was there in the first place (much less what is left in the bill). You are ojnly supposed to hear the Orwellian propaganda, all about 9/1 heroe--rather than about what the bill actuallyl does. This is EVIL stuff. No, I am not talking about the idea of providing some kind of health assistance to 9/11 "resp;onders", or even about the provisions of the actual bill. I am talking about the Orwellian propaganda designed to CONCEAL the provisions of the actual bill--including the TITLES of these bills.

My original understanding is that this bill included COMPENSATIOON for people as well as health care benefits. Whether the present bill does is difficult to know, because the media is uninterested in doing its job. What is the main job of the media--Fox News, as well as the despicable rest of the mainstream media? It is to inform you of the FACTS. Nope. The "facts" are not the ASSERTIONS of the political players. The facts are the DETAILS of the bill itself. Reporters need to READ the bill, or at least have a NEUTRAL person summarize the provisions of the bill. If parts of the bill ambiguous, then that is a FACT that needs to be explained. This is the media's main JOB. If they fail to do that, as they have (on this, ObamaCare, and so much else), then they are INCOMPETENT. You should FIRE themm (by not watching or reading, except the minimu necessary to know that the politicians are trying to snow you in the manner of Orwell's "1984"). Yes, I understand that Democrats are making it as hard as possible to know what is in this bill, and many bills, but that is merelyl another reason to vote against this RUSHED bill at the end of a lame duck session. If the media cannot explain to us--coherently--what is in a bill, then we should be AGAINST the bill (and the media, unless they are aggressively fighting the same battle to get the FACTS).

Let us back up. Remember 9/11? Remember all of the DONATIONS. Money has been thrown at New York City, and the people hurt by 9/11. And there is no reason further charitly (it is charity) could not be obtained for deserving heroes--even construction workers. Are these people MORE deserving than the heroes fighting for us in Afghanistan and Iraq? Not a chance. But SOME may be deserving of limited help ()NOT a blank check). How could these relatively few--NOT already being covered--"need" as much as 7BILLION dollars? Not possible. Absurd. Did not New York City police and firefighters have health insurance and other benefits? What about disability? What kind of benefits have these people already received, and what kind are they now receiving? Why cannot the gap be covered by private sources and donations? Where are Bill Gates and Warren Buffet? Why are the taxpayers of the entire nation supposed to take it on trust that the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT will spend their money wisely, and on the right peopl? I don't believe that. Do you? Then you really are a fool, aren't you?The questions go on and on. This bill merely seems to regard the Federal Government as a source of "free money".

Yes, looked at correctly, this is merely another EARMARK for the political benefit of the polilticians of New York state. I know. Since we are having a vote on this item, it is not technically an "earmark" (earmarks not usually being subject to individual vote, but submerged in a much bigger bill). But the bill contains all of the evils of an earmark, except that one, and adds some evils (including price tag) not in most earmarks. It is simply a misleading bill proposed by New York politicians for their own political benefit--to get some of that "ffee money" for their constituents.

Okay. But what if there really are some people who really need help with the health care they are receiving--help they can't otherwise get--who responded (even if not in the ordinary definition of "first responders") to an emergency which was an attack on the hwole nation? Fine. Those people--a small number--may exist. But they can be handled without a 6 or 7 BILLION dollar bill. Enter my brother's modest proposal.

My brother's modest proposal (really brilliant): Give the peole the SAME health care being given to discharged heroes who have served in combat in Afghanistan and Iraq. Yes, give these peole military and/or VA health care. Give them a card that gives them access to military health facilities--maybe even some of the same health care facilities as active duty service people. As stated, the 9/11 "responders" can hardly be regarded as MORe heroic than our soldiers who have fought in combat. As sateted, they are hardly more deserving of a better taxpayer funded health care system than the military. IF a 9/11 responder has health care needs CONNECTED TO 9/11 (no blank check for all health care needs), then we can give such a person the same access to our military health care system that soldiers with service connected health problems get. What could be fairer than that? This would apply, of course, only to the extent the needed health care is not already being provided lunder either private or public insurance. If the military has no such health care available to meet a particular need, then the 9/11 person would have the same rights to payment for outside services as a soldier in the same situation.(having to go through the same process as the soldier to qualify for going outside the military system).

You suspect that my brother's brilliant idea would not appeal to the Democrats pushing this bill, or to the people expecting to benefit? I agree with you--again exposing the fraud of this bill.

Then there are the Republicnas. It goes without saying that I will vote AGAINST each and every politician who votes for this bill in this lame duck session--Republican or Democrat, for any office and FOREVER. That already applies to a number of other votes in this lame duck session, includng "don't ask, don't tell", the "Dream Act", "food safety", and probably the START treaty. This is not just because of the indivicual bill, but because Repulicans let the lame duck session turn into this total., unconstitutioional farce making a mockery of the attempt to prevent this assault upon democracy supposedly stopped by the 20th Amendment (changing the term of Congress to the end of the year, instead of March, as previously). Yes, I include in this edict those Republicans who voted for the tax compromise--not because I oppposed any compromomise on that truly emergency situuation but because Republicans again let Obama and the Democrats add a "wish list" of "stimuls" items to the extension of the Bush tax cuts which had no business being considered in the lame duck sessio--not to mention that they should have always been voted on separatedly rather than in connection with an unrelated compromise on extending the Bush taxes only two years. Yes, I am sorely tempted to say I will vote against ANY Republican if this 9/11 bill goes through, or because of all of the other bills that have gone through, because Republicans (not just those voting the wrong way) COULD have stopped the 9/11 bill (maybe all of them) with a strong enough push back against this lame duck session. Even as this is written, Republicans CAN "run out the clock" on this particular bill (with enough political courage). On the brink of going that far, I have not chosen to disown the entire Republican Party over the lame duck session. But it is a close thing, and you can see the number of Republicans for whom I will NEVER vote in the future. Tennessee is especailly bad--where my brother lives. I feel like moving there to vote against EVERBODY (especially Corker and Alexander).

Yes, Republicans are not immune from the Orwellian disease--being politicians who have not really gotten the message. They are still willing to talk about "paying for" something like the 9/11 bill. I feel like voting against ANY Republican who talks about "paying for" new spending, as if that is not an Orwellian deception. Yes, I can understand talking about the Democrat HYPOCRISY and dishonesty--led by Obama, as Liar-i-Chief--in passing a PAYGO (pay as you go) bill with great fanfare, when they never had any intention of doing any such thing. That bill was an Orwellian lie from the beginning, and a lie even if Democrats really intended to pass NEW funding for every new spending bill.

Why is the 9/11 bill not fully "paid for", even if new taxes cover it? Easy. Say you hae a maxed out credit card with a $10,000 balance. But you are unemployed, and can't pay for it. Then you apply for a NEW credit card, and assure the bank your proposed credit limit (the new one) is "paid for" because you expect a new job (new revenue) that will be just enough to cover the new credit card. Have you arranged to "pay for" the new credit card? Of course not. You would not have paid the old credit card, and you needed EVERY new dollar of revenue you got to be applied to pay off the old card. We are not paying for the prsent government programs. Therefore, until we are, it is a LIE (objective--not a matter of opinion) to say that ANY new government spending is "paid for" unless and until we pay for the OLD spending. Republicans join in this lie every time they suggest that the problem with a Democrat bill is that it is not "paid for". Every single dollar of new revenue is needed to be applied to our deficit. Otherwise, how does the deficit ever go down? If every dollar raised in revenue is available for NEW spending, then we NEVER pay for the OLD spending. Orwell never even imagined a lie this obvious, and yet so universally accepted. The ONLYL reason I do not promise to vote against every Republican who is complicit in this lie is that it basically includes lthem ALL. And I am not yet willing to abandon Michelle Bockman (plus a very few others now in office and more coming into office). I have heard Michelle Bockman go along with this "paying for" lie with regard to this very same 9/11 bill. Shame. But Michelle Bockman is still my heroine, and you have to allow some blind spots for the good guys. Need I tell you that most Republicans now in office are NOT "good guys" (and gals)?

Orwell's "1984" lives on, in the Democratic Party, and too much of the Republican Party. .

Note: Above neither proofread nor spell checked, due to my bad eyesight.--unless/until this note disappears.