9/11 First Responders Bill - Is It An Insurance Company Bail-out?
I'm rooting for the first responders, and hope they get every penny of what they need. I hope too that if I ask how those pennies will be spent no one says I'm callous for asking. Until I turn them over, they are after all, my pennies, and I don't want to bail out insurance companies with them.
I also hope I'm just ignorant of the facts here, and that someone will set me straight. However, either my "Google Kung-Fu" isn't as strong as I thought, or there really is zero information out there on how this $4.2 billion is going to be spent, or more to the point, why.
The most I can find right now is this:
$1.5 Billion for health benefits, $2.7 Billion for compensation.
Here's where I have questions (and I'm not even going to address the question of whether there are doctors’ invoices for projected treatment costing $1.2 billion).
First responders, like teachers, tend to have "Cadillac" health benefits, and they are paid for by our tax dollars already.
Why isn't the medical insurance company paying the $1.5 Billion dollars? I did hear one first responder say on John Stewart's show in response to the "where's it going" question that he has a co-pay of $200.00 monthly. Fair enough - let's help him. But over 5 years (the bill funds for 5 years) that's $12 thousand dollars. $1.5 billon would handle the co-pay of 125,000 first responders, and I don't think there are that many of them with the same problem.
Plus, this is workers comp related. I'm only familiar with New Jersey law, so let me address the NJ first responders (other states may have the same or similar laws).
The workers comp carrier's policy would come first, and it has no co-pay. It also has no yearly or lifetime limit. Even if the comp carrier didn't pay (why didn't it pay?) health insurance would kick in where there is no comp coverage. That's plenty of coverage.
That's what I'm questioning here. I'm pretty confident that by funding with tax dollars a worker's comp policy and a health insurance policy that we bought plenty of insurance to cover first responders' medical bills. By creating a $1.2 billion fund, are we just letting an insurance company off the hook when that company should be paying?
Again I'm not questioning the first responders here. I'm questioning the insurance companies.
As for the $2.7 billion for compensation, worker's compensation covers that. Has congress looked into whether the insurance carrier has wrongfully denied the claims? Or, dare I ask, did they rightfully deny the compensation claims as unrelated to a work injury? If that's the case, why are we paying now if the matter has been litigated and the claims judged to be not work related?
If the insurance companies are supposed to be paying, then aren't we just bailing out the worker's comp and health insurance carriers? Wouldn't it be smarter (cheaper) to file suit and force them to pay?
Again, I pray that my Google skills have failed me and one of you can point me to something that shows Congress looked into these issues and dealt with them.
As best I know, Congress never held a hearing to ask any of these questions.
I'd hate to think we are just bailing out insurance companies when we hired them for this coverage with tax dollars in the first place.
- Comment (3)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments :
May '10
Re: 9/11 First Responders Bill - Is It An Insurance Company Bail-out?
This Congress hasn't done any meaningful analysis on anything. They are not interested in discussion or deliberation, just in flinging billions of dollars around to their political allies, and indiscriminately increasing the scope of government. Lawmaking with actual policy content awaits some future generation of politicians, perhaps in another Republic somewhere.
Oct '10
Re: 9/11 First Responders Bill - Is It An Insurance Company Bail-out?
I remember, as do millions of Americans, the selfless efforts to save lives, and later recover the dead, at ground zero. Even today those days and weeks carry an emotional load whenever I reflect on them. Yesterday, in Chicago, two firefighters died in an abandoned building. Other than sheer magnitude, how do these events differ? Safety responders, police and firemen particularly, have knowingly and heroically served and sacrificed for all our safety. Through our governments we have compensated and insured them accordingly. In what way does the order of magnitude somehow place the NYC responders in a unique setting? To families and friends, one firefighter or policeman injured or killed in the line of duty is as significant as the thousands at one event. Or, is the issue the insurance lobby after all???
Oct '10
Re: 9/11 First Responders Bill - Is It An Insurance Company Bail-out?
The question that needs to be answered is does the federal government have an obligation to the first responders. If the answer is no, then what is being given is charity. I find no express power in the Constitution for the federal government to grant charity, and it should therefore not be given.