Is the U.S. Government Covering Their Backside when it comes to 9-11 Illnesses?

That's the question coming up recently with the statement released from the Federal Government regarding compensation for health costs relating to September 11th, 2001 and the following weeks of exposure to chemicals at ground zero. The most recent statement is that of some 50 cancers are now being covered and an admitted link to chemicals in the disaster area.

Yes, it's all well and great that the government of a country is stepping up to the plate to help their citizens...but watch out, first you have to meet their requirements.

First being, if you are currently participating in a lawsuit related to September 11th, you must withdraw from said lawsuit. You must also submit proof of a “timely” withdrawal from the lawsuit(s).
“For purposes of the Eligibility Form, you may submit either a court order establishing that the action has been discontinued and/or dismissed dated on or before January 2, 2012 or a notice/letter of withdrawal filed on the ECF system in the relevant docket on or before January 2, 2012.” Quoted from the Zagrogaclaims website (https://www.zadrogaclaimsinfo.com)
As far as settled claims go, you can't apply for help with the VCF.

Second being, you have to prove your illness is related to the exposure of ground zero following the attack and subsequent collapse of the World Trade Center.

Now, for some of the legal qualification requirements for applying (retrieved and quoted from zadrogaclaims):

(B) Current Eligibility Criteria – The eligibility criteria described in this subpargraph for an individual are the individual is described in any of the following clauses:
(I) A person who was present in the New York City disaster area in the dust or dust cloud on September 11, 2001
(II) A Person who worked, resided, or attended school childcare, or adult daycare in the New York City disaster area for---
1. At least 4 days during the 4-month period beginning on September 11, 2001, and ending on January 10, 2002; or
2. At least 30 days during the period beginning on September 11, 2001, and ending on July 31, 2002.
(III) Any person who worked as a cleanup worker or performed maintenance work in the New York City disaster area during the 4-month period described in subparagraph (B)(I) and had extensive exposure to WTC dust as a result of such work.
(IV) A Person who was deemed eligible to receive a grant from the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation Residential Grant Program, who possessed a lease for a residence or purchased a residence in the New York City disaster area, and who resided in such residence during the period beginning on September 11, 2001, and ending on May 31, 2003.
(V) A person whose place of employment--
1. at any time during the period beginning on September 11, 2001, and ending on May 31, 2003, was in the New York City disaster area; and
(VI) was deemed eligible to receive a grant from the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation WTC Small Firms Attraction and Retention Act program or other government incentive program designed to revitalize the lower Manhattan economy after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

The EPA (environmental protection agency) and OSHA took air samples in the days following September 11th, they reported that they found no excessive levels of asbestos contrary to other findings. They also claimed that they found no excessive levels of lead, organic compounds or anything else except in and around ground zero. Other dust samples were taken from surfaces near ground zero and did show very high levels of asbestos. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH's) continued to remain a health hazard even into 2003, the EPA collected their air samples from late 2001 through mid-2002 at two locations (a fence surrounding ground zero, and 0.4 miles from ground zero). The levels recorded at ground zero were much higher and remained elevated for a longer period than those recorded at the other location proving that ground zero was the source of the pollution.

And yet, even with studies showing there was contamination and pollutants resulting from and emanating from the area, the public and responders were assured there were no risks to their health and that they did not have to wear masks.

It took until November 2005 with a meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians of the Albert Einstein College of Medicine presenting findings of a report on the lung function of some 12,000+ firefighters, many of whom worked at Ground Zero to bring forward evidence of a health disaster. The study found and presented there showed rates of pulmonary function decline up to 12 times higher than normal. According to the New York News, the study also showed that an average decline in lung function experienced by ground zero workers was equivalent to 12 years of aging. In April 2006 the WTC Screening Program of Mount Sinai Medical Center recorded an upwards of 8,000 people were requiring treatment because of the injuries resulting from exposure to the air at ground zero. In 2004 there was a class action lawsuit filed against the EPA on the behalf of residents and workers exposed to toxins and included a demand that the defendants fund a medical monitoring program which would include testing and preventive screening that resulted from exposure to the WTC dust.

And yet, here we sit in 2012, with people still looking for help and answers, with people still suffering and families grieving the loss of loved ones...and the government is now taking steps to provide that help and admitting to links between illnesses and the events of 9-11. While this confirmation comes late, and cancers are being added to the list of illnesses. And why? Because the government and agencies working under them refused to admit the health risks and resultant issues with health from exposure with inadequate precautions to ground zero and surrounding area.

I contacted the woman whom I recently spoke to regarding her husbands death, this was what she had to say on the recent court ruling and the compensation fund for 9-11 related illnesses. For privacy reasons we are changing the names of anyone mentioned in the statement given.

“Even after 10 years it still hurts to look back at all the pain and suffering resulting from one day in history 11 years ago. To me, and a few others I have spoken with, we look at this court ruling and the statements made by the government and wonder just what their reasons are. They are asking people not to hold them liable, they are asking people give up what could potentially result in help in favor of something that has so many requirements that may never result in helping responders still living and the families of those who died.

Money can never replace the ones we lost, it can never replace the time taken away from days spent in pain. Timothy would not have chosen to change what he did following the attacks in September of 2001, to this day I don't believe he would have accepted money in exchange for his efforts in New York. I do believe he would have given everything though, for just one more day than he had with his family and friends. He fought so hard against something ravaging his body, I have to believe it was worth it, but I always end up asking myself at what cost did it come? Is it a monetary cost of being compensated with money? Will money ever replace the loss and pain that came with it? Can money ever fill the hole in my daughters life that she has without her father? No matter how much compensation is given, even with an acknowledgment in lack of better judgment given the situation, nothing is ever going to replace him. Or any of the other brave men and women who did what they could when it was needed. The only thing that will help, I believe, as well as others, is truth. What exactly happened? What were they exposed to and why?

I agree people who have suffered and are still suffering as a result of whatever they were exposed to deserve to have their medical and health costs taken care of without being a burden on their financial situations. It should be a given, if you were there when it happened, if you were there in the months following, that should be the end of it, compensation given for the cost of healthcare.

I am still paying medical bills to this day for Timothy's care. But would I exchange not paying them only to be required not to ask questions anymore? No, I will gladly pay every bill that comes in as I can pay it so I can continue to seek out what happened and what he was exposed to.”

I went on to ask her if she has filed an application for eligibility. She said she hadn't, she was advised by a lawyer that it wouldn't do much good at this point, the most that would happen is in the next few years she may receive a portion of compensation towards Timothy's medical care costs that she is still paying, she would never see money to help with financial costs other than that. So with knowing in her heart that money will never replace him, and with the feeling she has that this is just another way to get people to close their mouths, she wants nothing to do with it. It isn't going to help her or her daughter, she doesn't want the money if it means she can no longer question the events of that day and the months following.

So to sum up what is being said by the government, “drop the lawsuits, come to us, prove your illness is related to the events during a specific time period, and we might be able to help you.”
And to sum up one woman's thoughts on this, and as she claims, a few others she has spoken to about this, “to get financial help we have to jump through hoops and promise to shut our mouths.”

So now it's left to those in the public, those who didn't loose someone and didn't suffer through the pain and grief.
Do we back the government in the futile and delayed response? Or do we stand behind the families still demanding another investigation into the events of September 11th?
Do we give our support to a government who may have made bad decisions leading up to and following the tragedy that occurred 11 years ago? Or do we give our support to those still searching for answers in whatever form we can, be it financial, moral, emotional support?