Has Anyone Else Noticed? Jonathan Alter, EVERY TIME He Appears On TeeVee...

[AzDar]

tries desperately to sell the idea that the Dems need to 'take what they can get' regarding HCR.
He's battled cancer recently, and seems overly-concerned that insurance reform is passed, rather than TRUE reform, which of course means a strong Public Option.

I understand that he's probably personally concerned his coverage may be dropped due to his illness, but he needs to stop trying to sell the watered-down reform because he'd personally benefit from it.

We need REAL reform, Jonathan.

[scheming daemons]

1. Unrec......

The man has cancer. He has a VESTED interest in reform passing that doesn't discriminate against pre-existing conditions.

Jonathan's view is that it is better to get 50% of what you want, when the alternative is 0%.


Your view is, apparently, 100% or nothing.


There is validity in both views, and Jonathan's opinion is no less valid than your own.

[liberalhistorian]

9. My understanding is that stopping the insidious discrimination

against "pre-existing conditions" that most insurance companies engage in today is one of the prime provisions of the current bill?

[eridani]

29. Except for age discrimination, which remains peachy keen

Those assholes won't double my premium because I'm diabetic, nosireebob! They'll do it because I'm 62, which is ever so much better! :sarcasm:

[grantcart]

14. I disagree

He is arguing that we should get a modest improvement that will only help part of the population (which includes himself) and forgo real reform that would mean universal coverage (no matter how modest).

I would find his position more compelling if he would advocate his position but say that he would personally put himself into the pool of people with no coverage until final reform is completed.

For the record I would probably qualify for coverage with passage of health care reform (having been denied 10 years because of a minor precondition)and be able to pay for it but would prefer to forgo that until passage of a public option that will actually constitute structural reform.

Public Option is the 50% of what we want (single payer being what we really want).


Health Care reform without the watered down public option isn't 50% of what we want its 10% of the 50% of what we want and it will accomodate enough Jonathon Alters to reduce the pent up political will to make universal coverage even less likely.

BTW there are enough Democratic Congresspeople who feel the way this way that there is no hope of passing a health care bill without a public option.

In the end there will be 5-6 Democratic Senators who will be faced with voting for a reconciled bill with a public option and getting 50% of what they want or nothing at all.

Some may not vote for it, but I seriously doubt that they will join the Republicans to sustain a filibuster on the vote.

[WillyT]

21. Hey GC...

I also think that Alter is coming from the New Deal perspective.

His last book was about FDR and what it took to get some of the New Deal legislation passed. And he continually points out that both Social Security and Medicare\Medicaid looked nothing like they do now when originally passed.

IOW - He believes that you get a bill through now, and then build on it in successive years like they did before. He also rails against discriminating against the sick, and believes something is better than nothing.

I happen to disagree about waiting and building it in pieces, but I do see his point of history.

:shrug:

[grantcart]

26. somethings can be built on

others like social security, civil rights act of 64 etc need a systemic change


thats what we need now

[WillyT]

27. Totally Agree My Man !!!

:toast:

:hi:

[DJ13]

2. Yeah, he's been a sellout for months on health care

He's always careful to try and maintain his progressive cred by first stating "of course I think single payer is the way to go, but..." or recently "while Im in favor of a public option what we need now is...", but he's just another corporatist who would sell his own mother out to keep profits in the health care system when its all said and done.

[scheming daemons]

3. "he's just another corporatist who would sell his own mother out"

What utter, pathetic ignorance and what a rude uncaring thing to say.


Alter is dealing with something that he wouldn't wish on you in a million years....


The way we Democrats eat our own is getting sickening. Alter is a voice in media that is on our fucking side, you moron.

[DJ13]

4. Did Ted sell out his goals due to his condition?

[scheming daemons]

7. You are accusing Alter of selling out his goals.... how do you know what Alter's goals are?

His goals might simply be.... nobody should be denied coverage because they are sick or have a pre-existing condition.


Alter may not share YOUR goals... but to say he's selling out his own presumes an awful lot.

[DJ13]

15. . how do you know what Alter's goals are?

How do you, yet you defend his halfassed sellout position.

[Sebastian Doyle]

5. Any voice in favor of rewarding the insurance companies for screwing all of us

is NOT on our side.

[AzDar]

12. + 1

:applause:

[AzDar]

8. Classy as usual.

:eyes:

[Tangerine LaBamba]

10. I'm rapidly losing faith -

the tone here towards Democrats, or liberals, or progressives, or whatever you want to call people who are mostly on our side, is heartbreaking. This post to which you so righteously responded is a perfectly example of the narrow-minded approach that these know-nothings have, and, frankly, it's not doing the left any good.

They're just sounding more and more like left-leaning freepers, only freepers, at least, are loyal to their own. Here, the lack of loyalty, and the seeming inability to understand what compromise is just makes me think DU isn't what it used to be.

Thank you for a first-rate, dead-on response........................................

[AzDar]

18. Really? A "left-leaning Freeper" ? A "know-nothing" ? Because I believe half-assed reform is

really no reform at all?

Wow.

Hope you have insurance to cover your broken heart, btw. :eyes:

[Tangerine LaBamba]

24. Exactly what I'd exact from

the kind of unfortunate poster I described.

You might want to read the history of social reform in our country - specifically, the programs that LBJ got passed and Social Security under FDR, and learn about how they evolved. Your ignorance of what those programs were in their inception is underscored by your belligerent, laughable tone.

Yes.

Really......................

[Sebastian Doyle]

20. "Democrats" who favor corporations over the people show no loyalty to me

Why the FUCK should I be loyal to them?

[liberalhistorian]

11. I'm sure he wouldn't wish it on us and I'm sure he's going

through hell dealing with his cancer right now. But what about the tens of thousands, if not more, of Americans who also have cancer but who are uninsured, don't qualify for Medicaid or Medicare, and who can't get coverage and, therefore, treatment? That is a very real situation for many people with cancer or other serious, life-threatening illnesses, and his selfishness in this regard, thinking only about HIM, and not others with his same condition who aren't fortunate enough to be covered and who don't even know if they'll be able to stay alive, really eats into my sympathy for him.

[AzDar]

6. That's what I see. I feel for anyone who battles an illness, but it seems to be a case of Jonathan

looking out solely for his own interests.
I'm thinking of those who battle cancer with NO insurance at all.

[kentuck]

13. Just my opinion...

But I believe Jonathan Alter is a strong advocate for healthcare reform. I would not attack his motives even if I disagreed with his idea that we should do it incrementally.

[grantcart]

16. Health Care changes that do not include a public option may be considered

an alteration or revision but they do not constitute "reform" IMHO. They leave the structure basically intact and actually use the power of the government to force people to purchase private insurance.

[Larkspur]

17. Yes, Jonathon Alter has been a disappointment

Progressives have already compromised by not pursuing single payer and settling for a strong public option. Now it's time for hte conservatives to compromise and accept the public option.

It's time that conservatives be forced to accept this compromise. I'm tired of whiners, like Jonathan Alter, who want Progressives to wimp out to the conservative bullies.

[AzDar]

19. I agree completely. If we can't hold out for REAL reform now, when we will we ever get it?

[Me.]

22. It Bothered Me When I Heard Him

Talking about how liberals could learn a lesson from the senator and they should stop insisting on getting what they think the American people need and want. Frankly, I'm getting fed up with the don't let the good be the enemy of the perfect talk. Why not, for once, get it right, first time around? Our president made a promise to the senator and it included universal health care. That promise should be kept. Nothing more need be said.

[Kahuna]

23. You can't get me to hate on Alter. I love the man. He has almost always..

been on our side. He believes in his heart that the public option isn't doable. THAT is why he is saying the Dems should take baby steps.

[seafan]

25. We liberals are not going to "get it out of our system", Mr. Alter.

I find Alter's stance on health care reform very disappointing, and the fact that he hasn't been able to articulate it clearly is not helping the situation.



Ed and Jonathan recently went at each other over the public option battle.



August 19, 2009

.....

SCHULTZ: Is this a defining moment for President Obama in this—the totality of trying to get reform?

ALTER: I think the next six weeks are. You don‘t want to say it is this week, but he will have a huge defining moment when he goes before a joint session of Congress which I expect him to do. I don‘t have any inside knowledge that he‘s doing this, but I would expect that he‘s going to have to go to the country and the best format for him is the one that he used, you know, last winter where he performs very, very well.

And that will be a true moment of truth if he can bring the country with him on this legislation. I think it‘s a terrible idea, by the way, just to go.

...Just to go. ???

Go where? For Obama to go before a joint session of Congress? Or for Democrats to bypass recalcitrant Republicans, and pass a bill to their liking?

ALTER: Now there‘s too many other important parts in this bill that are frankly much more important than a public option which I‘m totally for. A public option is a means to an end. It‘s a means to control in cost. There‘s many—there are guarantees in here for coverage so that we stop kicking sick people when they‘re down.

We‘ve outlawed discrimination against sick people. The idea that this bill is just toilet paper if there‘s no public option is frankly ridiculous.

ALTER: We‘re talking now about Democrats, and the assumption that all Democrats, Kent Conrad and all the rest, are somehow going to be crow barred into going for some particular version for this bill, the legislative process is a give and take. If they can come up with a co-op that is super strong.

SCHULTZ: There you go.

ALTER: Super glue. You can‘t.

SCHULTZ: Liberals wouldn‘t take that, Jon.

ALTER: Well, they should.

SCHULTZ: They wouldn‘t.

ALTER: They‘re being fools. They‘re being fools.

SCHULTZ: Why?

ALTER: Because it‘s great.

SCHULTZ: That‘s not going to bring costs down. It‘s not going to control cost.

ALTER: First of all, who knows that? Nobody knows.

SCHULTZ: It‘s been tried before and it hasn‘t worked.

ALTER: No, it‘s been tried on a local state basis.

SCHULTZ: It won‘t work.

ALTER: You have a huge national co-op. Nobody knows that. First of all, health care economists don‘t know that. Nobody knows. You can create something new in this world that can work if you bullet-proof it. The point is, Ed, look, I‘m for a public option.

He says liberals are "being foolish" if they expect Blue Dogs to "go along" with a public option. We don't yet know what kind of arm twisting might be going on. One good way to twist a few arms would be to yank committee chairmanships and memberships, the second that these Blue Dogs vote with Republicans for a filibuster.

ALTER: There‘s a lot of ways to skin a cat.

SCHULTZ: OK, OK. Let‘s skin a cat on single payer then.

ALTER: It‘s a means to an end.

SCHULTZ: Can I—well, it‘s a mean of covering everybody. Single payer? Can I see some CBO figures and an actuary on single-payer? We‘re waiting for the CBO to come back, but I will tell you this.

ALTER: I‘m for single-payer, by the way.

So, Alter claims he's for both a public option and single-payer, but he refuses to fight for either of them, claiming dismissively that they are both merely "a means to an end".


:thumbsdown:

SCHULTZ: You‘re a good guy. A great guy. All right. The bottom line is this president went out on the campaign trail in ‘07 and talked about reforming health care and talked about going after the insurance industry.

ALTER: He didn‘t talk about a public option.

SCHULTZ: He talked about a public option all along.

ALTER: Not—the details of this have been influx on the guy. Got hammered by Hillary Clinton because he was against an employer mandate. Without an employer mandate, you have no program. The details need to be put in perspective, Ed. They are details. The principle.

SCHULTZ: They are going to cover every American.

ALTER: Yes. Well, that‘s the principle. That‘s the principle.

SCHULTZ: And repeal the Bush tax cuts. Repeal the Bush tax cuts.

ALTER: But you don‘t need.

SCHULTZ: Tax the top 10 percent.

ALTER: You do not need a public option to cover every American. You can do that by laws very easily and all this bills do. OK?

SCHULTZ: But the public option is just that.

ALTER: So let‘s be clear about what a public option is. It‘s a detail.

SCHULTZ: I know exactly what a public option is. The public option is that you can get in it or you can stay where you are right now or you can have no insurance at all.

ALTER: It‘s a means to an end. OK?

ALTER: They should be protected if they lose their job. The worst thing in the world, is we have a status quo.

SCHULTZ: COBRA sucks. COBRA is not OK. Come on now.

ALTER: Forget COBRA. Forget COBRA.

SCHULTZ: Here‘s the deal.

ALTER: Look, if you are—the core of this legislation.

SCHULTZ: Is getting Democrats onboard and doing what they were elected to do.

ALTER: Is universal coverage and ending discrimination against people with pre-existing situations.

SCHULTZ: OK. And the way you do that.

ALTER: And the public option is a means to that end. By itself it‘s not.

SCHULTZ: OK. And the way you do that is get the Republicans out of the way, because they are obstructionist. They will never go through with this reform.

ALTER: I agree with you on that.

SCHULTZ: They will never go.

ALTER: I agree with you on that.

SCHULTZ: All right. We‘ll end on that note.

ALTER: But liberals are driving themselves over the cliff if they go.

SCHULTZ: All right. Jonathan Alter.

ALTER: If it‘s public option or bust. It‘s a disaster.

SCHULTZ: “Newsweek”—OK, Jonathan Alter, senior editor, “Newsweek,” has written some great stuff. You believe that it‘s a civil right issue. And we‘ve got to have you come back to talk about that because that‘s what I thought we were going to talk about tonight. Lots going on.

ALTER: Liberals don‘t want to go over the cliff with this.

SCHULTZ: No, I think they do.

ALTER: No.

SCHULTZ: I think this—I think they do want to go.

ALTER: Don‘t throw out the baby with the bath water, Ed.

SCHULTZ: I think they do—no, no, no. You have to draw the line.

(CROSSTALK)

SCHULTZ: No, no, no!

ALTER: Ed.

SCHULTZ: Jonathan, I respect you so much but I‘m telling you where the people are on this.

ALTER: It‘s a negotiation.

SCHULTZ: No. You can‘t negotiate with Grassley. You can‘t negotiate with Grassley.

ALTER: No, not with Grassley.

(CROSSTALK)

SCHULTZ: You can‘t negotiate with Jon Kyl. Jon Kyl said yesterday he‘s against the co-op.

ALTER: I don‘t want to negotiate with the Republicans. Screw the Republicans.

So, Alter thinks it is crazy to negotiate with Republicans, yet it would be "a terrible idea, just to go". (To bypass Republicans by reconciliation? So confusing, what he is saying here.)

:crazy:




But what has bothered me MOST about Alter's comments.... which, to me, seem all over the board lately.... was this one:


Keith Olbermann transcript with Jonathan Alter, August 20, 2009

ALTER: ..... So I think what‘s going to happen is to the left, you‘re going to see some votes in the House where they‘re given a chance to vote on single-payer, to vote on a public option, and then after more liberal members have gotten that out of their system, then they‘ll get to, you know, real deal-cutting time and you‘ll see perhaps this bifurcating of the bill so that the tougher ones go through—under reconciliation, only requiring 51 votes for the tough votes and then the ones that are easier, they‘ll do one of their ordinary business requiring 60 votes.

Personally, I'm anticipating these two events:


Here are the YouTube and NY Daily News article announcing upcoming vote on Single Payer., August 10, 2009


Rep. Anthony Weiner: 'The CBO is performing a cost analysis of Single Payer over the August recess.', August 10, 2009




So, Alter says that he is in favor of BOTH a public option AND single-payer, as highlighted in the above recent clips ---


But, then he disparages the upcoming vote in the House on single-payer legislation (HR 676 Medicare For All) to replace the current House legislation, as merely window-dressing for "more liberal members" to get Single-Payer "out of their system".


That, to me, is rank betrayal of the single-payer concept. He can't continue to equivocate like this and maintain a stance that is logical.




Mr. Alter, there is about at much chance for "more liberal members" to view the upcoming House vote on Single-Payer as merely an exercise to "get it out of their system", as there is for still-enraged voters to get the election theft of 2000 "out of our system".

[AzDar]

28. Wow. That Alter/Big Ed exchange is really telling...good info.

:thumbsup:

[BzaDem]

32. I was so happy that Alter went on and debunk Shultz.

In that back-and-forth, Ed Shultz was wrong in basically everything he said. Alter was exactly right.

Alter wasn't being contradictory at all. He supports single payer (and would support a public option). But the difference between Alter and you is that Alter knows the difference between wanting something and being able to get it. Alter probably learned this difference at the age of 4 or 5, when most people learn it.

Alter is willing to settle for something less (universal private coverage) than what he wants if the alternative is nothing. And make no mistake -- the alternative IS nothing. Obama isn't saying this outright, because he has to pacify the line-in-the-sand progressives in Congress as if they were five-year-olds. But the chance of enacting single-payer or a public-option that has 100+ million enrolled is about as much as the chance of enacting it under Reagan. These "progressives" do not just get to make up the current political reality out of whole cloth.

[BzaDem]

30. Jonathan Alter is exactly right.

The idea that only a public option is "real reform" is pure fantasy. The only public option even being considered in any of the 6 committees would enroll around 10 million people, and that's after 8 years. If a public option ends up passing (which is highly unlikely), it will almost certainly be watered down even lower than it is now.

Real reform would be actually helping people get affordable insurance. Subsidies for insurance will do this. Preventing discrimination based upon pre-existing conditions will do this. There are entire countries that don't even have a public option that still manage to offer excellent universal care (the Netherlands, Switzerland) due to strict regulations like the ones above. I would personally vote and advocate for a public option. But if it came down to a final vote and it was the real reform (mentioned above, without a public option) or nothing, the choice of real reform is obvious.

Any purported "progressive" who kills real healthcare (that has the provisions above) because it doesn't have a public option is no better than a Republican. Both Republicans and these fake progressives want to kill any bill that has a chance of passage that will provide healthcare to those who can't afford it today. I would donate to their opponents' campaign if that happens -- for every single one of them.

People seem to think that the correct litmus test for a progressive is whether or not they are a line-in-the-sand public-option advocate. That is all wrong. The real litmus test for a progressive is who is willing to vote for a bill that helps everyone (including the poor) get healthcare. When the final vote comes down, we will find out who actually cares about the poor and the sick and who just pretends to.

[Cetacea]

31. Yes, just the other day as a matter of fact.

He's acting like a man on a mission.