Sam I will field your question. The government's job is to protect its citizens in a nutshell. So in the event of the governments failure to do this job, it should be held partially responsible for the damages done. Now I am not talking petty things like my neighbor is a douche bag and burned down my barn. I am referring more to major incidents such as collateral damage in a war zone, or a terrorist attack. In short yes, I think that it would be appropriate and well within the confines of what i think the governments purpose is to take care of these volunteer workers. I think that the City of New York, the state there of, and the federal government should all be sharing the bill for this legislature, although not necesarily evenly.

I agree with Skrum, we should just follow the doctrine of the United States from the 50s, i.e. we should raise the highest marginal tax rate to 92% and focus on our educational system again. Also we should choose officials that actually have our people's best interests at heart, as opposed to the interest of a privileged few.

Yeah so you are in basic agreement with my position det. My question was more directed at skrum because he seems to be arguing that government shouldn't do that.

Topic Veta please, this has been mostly troll free so far lets not get too far off the tracks, the back and forth between me and skrum was about the necessity of this bill.

I like the sarcasm though ;-)

I have already given my position. Support of volunteers should be voluntary.

This bill also cover civilians suffering long term health issues from exposure, if they have no other coverage or relief available would you condemn just like you condemn those that went to help voluntarily?

Sam please, this has been mostly troll-free up to now. So don't be the one who uses trollish language like "condemn" which applies to punishing someone who has done something wrong. No one has done something wrong here. Volunteers do not have the expectation that if they do something for others they will get something in return. Not giving them something in return is to be philosophically consistent with their actions.

So by extension you consider the benefits given you our armed forces excessive since we have a volunteer service?

*to our

Sam:

From your initial post to this thread:

"weren't covered because they responded when they were off duty or were volunteers not covered by union benefits"

You have to be philosophically consistent too.