Did RATigan really just compare the '60s civil rights movement to

[JamesA1102]

ending employer based healthcare? This guy is such a tool. He doesn't support single payer or a public option but rather favors converting everything including Medicare to some sort of voucher system. So how is letting corporations off the hook for providing benefits to their workers in any way comparable to the civil rights movement of the 1960s?

[SoCalDem]

1. Perhaps, BUT until the "comfy" ones LOSE their employer (ripoff) insurance

there will never be the mass demonstrations that will be necessary for a single (Canadian-style) health care system.

We are IN that "comfy group", and even though the cost keeps going up, we at least have coverage, and can afford it. BUT the instant that it all "goes away, you can bet there will be hell-to-pay.

Middle class people demonstrated back in the 60's because THEIR sons were being sent to war...not to prevent the sons of people they would never know, from being sent to war.

People wonder why "the streets are not awash with people complaining about health care", and that's why. People will not take to the streets so that someone , somewhere else can go to a doctor, but when enough people (formerly comfy people) lose their OWN care, there will be a big enough street-presence for the legislature to take note.

[NNN0LHI]

6. Parents who were anti-war protesters during the 60's?

I honestly don't recall any parents doing any protesting. As I remember that time it was mostly young wealthy college students with draft deferments and in the "comfy group", who were doing most of the protesting back then.

Am I misremembering this?

Don

[SoCalDem]

7. The bulk of the protestors were young people, but as the media

took on the task of ending the war, the handwriting was on the wall..and it was hard to find any family who wanted their son to go..

Protests start in one place, and they either catch on & spread, or they fizzle..

These days, there are too many people who don't care about "others", and probably as many who are so scared of losing what they have, to say much. there are many workers who are afraid to even take a vacation because their boss might not "miss" them all that much, and they might be next in the lay-off line:( Taking time off to "protest" could be dangerous to their ability to make their house payments:(

[JamesA1102]

9. That sounds like a burn the village to save it solution

and RATigan does not favor a Single Payer System like Canada.

[SoCalDem]

12. Sadly, it's the ONLY way it will ever happen here

We missed the boat. Medicare was always planned to be for everyone (they did not call it Eldercare), but as Johnson's star dimmed & Vietnam took over everything & we ended up with Nixon, we were doomed to be lucky to get Medicare for the oldsters & the rest of us were hung out to dry:(

[JamesA1102]

15. Sorry you don't have your facts straight

Medicare was never intended to be for everyone, it was always for the elderly. And it was passed in 1965, long before Johnson's star dimmed as you put it.

Plus Nixon proposed universal healthcare in 1974 but it was the left that killed the plan because they felt it didn't go far enough. Ted Kennedy negotiated that plan with the White House and always regeted that it didn't go through.

[KT2000]

2. employer based healthcare

is a form of slavery. Work for a company 35 years and get laid off when it looks like you might start having health problems? No access to healthcare. Afraid to quit an abusive job because that means you will lose access to healthcare? Company reducing wages because they are confident people will stay to keep their access to healthcare? Get a serious illness that prevents you from working? You have to quit your job, lose health benefits, spend down your assets and go on Medicaid. I have seen that happen too many times.

I don't agree with his voucher system but corporations should not be able to hold our access to healthcare in their sociopathic hands.

[xchrom]

3. +1

[JamesA1102]

10. So you favor letting Corporations off the hook for

providing benefits to their employees.

[KT2000]

13. it is not a matter of

"off the hook"
We need to come up with a system that is predicated on HEALTHCARE for everyone. Many people do not work for corporations - some work for themselves, some work part-time, some are not able to work, some are children etc.
When it comes to healthcare - that should be a right for all, not a benefit, and not up to corporations as to whether they will provide it or not, offer useless insurance or raise rates at will.

[JamesA1102]

14. You can still have Healthcare for everyone

and not let Corporations off the hook for providing benefits for their employees.

[TheKentuckian]

17. That's called taxes. It can be an employer contribution if you like but forcing people to take

whatever slop the saltmine is serving is stupid and puts a leash on the worker.
Mandating by law that we accept whatever slop the saltmine decides is an abomination.

Now we have a market based, profit driven system with an individual mandate for a product we have no choice in.

Plus, for all the concern about employers carrying their load, they have the lower fine.

[JamesA1102]

21. You should have read from the first post.

I'm not the one concerned for corporations or want to let them off the hook. RATigan is.

[TheKentuckian]

23. I see you didn't even bother to read the post replied to. Your concern is "letting employers off the

hook" so that is what I addressed in the post.

I reckon your interest is in maintaining the status quo and attacking those disagree rather than a discussion.

I offered that employers could contribute without indenturing the employee and allowing them to seek a better fit for them since we insist on a market based system for providing access. The current system has us on a wage death spiral, ever increasing costs are annihilating our pay.

A tax makes sure of a proper contribution not the employer system. Up till this law goes into effect there is nothing to make the employer pull their weight and even under it the fine is 750 bucks a year. That ain't "their share" but rather a deeply resented token effort.

The employer based system is indefensible and a relic. If you cared about holding employers accountable then you would have focused on doing so rather than keeping folks stuck at a job they would like to leave with declining or stagnant wages because they wish to keep their coverage.

Your point is a red herring.

[Hannah Bell]

16. they're already off the hook, maybe you haven't noticed. most employers don't provide health

benefits.

[JamesA1102]

20. That's not true!

Don't make up stuff.

[laughingliberal]

4. I'm not certain his stand is being interpreted correctly. Here's an article about his views:

http://rawstory.com/2009/10/corporate-communism-health-care/

MSNBC host Dylan Ratigan says the efforts of some congresspeople to kill the public health care option and limit access to the proposed health care exchange system is a sign that Congress is defending the "corporate communism" of the health care industry.

Looks like he was supporting the public option and more access to the exchanges. I believe the voucher idea comes from support for a Wyden amendment which would have allowed those who have employer or union sponsored health care to use the money the employer or union would spend on their health care to purchase a policy on the exchange:

"If you're looking for choice in your own health care or competition to break up the corporate communism that burdens our country at this point and prevents any of us from finding work -- no no, your Senate is not working for you, there will be no competition, nor will there be any choice," Ratigan said.

Ratigan said the interplay between the health industry near-monopolies and their protectors in Congress amounts to "a cancer on our nation."

Ratigan was referring to an amendment proposed by Oregon Democratic Senator Ron Wyden that would have allowed anyone with health insurance from an employer or a labor union to shop for health care on a so-called health insurance exchange. Wyden withdrew that amendment last week after heavy pressure from business and labor leaders, meaning the health reform bill being debated in the Senate will allow only those without such insurance policies to use the exchange, rendering it useless for a majority of Americans.

Whether you agree with this idea or not, it is not advocating for letting corporations off the hook for their employees' benefits.

[nashville_brook]

5. +1

[SoCalDem]

8. and he's one of the FEW who has dared to say outloud, what we all have been saying for a long time

His corporate sponsors are probably wishing he would STFU..

[JamesA1102]

11. That article is not to the point he has been making recently

Plus he never supported the Public Option.

[laughingliberal]

18. Link? eom

[upi402]

19. WRONG

you're the tool -now aren't ya?

[JamesA1102]

22. Do you even know what we're talking about?

You don't seem to.