I am being consistent in my position I am just try to figure out where you draw the line.

So establishing benefits after the fact is outside of what you support but if benefits were established before the fact you have no problem with volunteers receiving government funds. The unique and unforeseen scope of 9/11 doesn't change your opinion it seems.

I am still curious on if you feel any private citizens that were present at and/or around ground zero should be eligible for government relief if they didn't have enough private coverage benefits to cover the health costs of the potential long term health issues that exposure to the fallout can cause.

Sam:

1) You have not been consistent in your position: you tried to change the meaning of "volunteer" to something different than when you used it the first time.

2) Volunteers recieving benefits before the fact is something I haven't talked about. Maybe you are thinking about what someone else said.

3) I have already mentioned that health care and insurance and benefits are state issues. States can do all sorts of stuff. Congress can do things only if it arises from an enumerated power. If states or private parties or unions have not set up provisions for what happens to volunteers, that doesn't mean that Congress can simply jump in and create a new benefit, especially if it is philosophically incompatible with the principle of voluntarism in the first place.

I have consistently supported the bill.

Also what is your position on the private citizens that aren't being classified as volunteer responders but still eligible for benefits under this bill. Do you feel they should or should not be eligible for government aid?

What if the states and localities do not have the means to provide benefits for these citizens? Are they screwed?

To become a volunteer does not mean you give up any rights that you already have. The test for federal aid is whether it comes from an enumerated power. If there is an enumerated power, all who come under the compass of that enumerated power are entitled to the aid that Congress is empowered to give.

If states do not have the means to give all the benefits that they have promised, somebody is going to get screwed.

I also agree with Skrum. Congress should not have power outside its enumerated powers in the constitution and its amendments. For God's sake, have you heard? They criminalized heroine! Indeed, they even forced the states to all raise the drinking age to 21, despite not having that explicit power either.

Sorry forgot to close that thought, the point is, Skrum, that's a perfectly fine sentiment to have if you ignore what actually happens.