Zcom_simple

Hello,

Blogs are a familiar feature on the internet - where users post content in an accumulating manner, with comments, and search options, etc. They facilitate expression and exploration, and via attached comments, also debate and synthesis.


Reading and
Navigating Blogs

Our blogs are quite powerful. Each writer can post, as is typically the case. Sustainers who have the option can also post, however. All Blogs appear in the blog system, and sometimes also in content boxes the top page of ZNet - and always via the left menu of the top page - and can be found via searches, etc.

Commenting on blogs follows the blogs, attached at the bottom, and blog comments, like all others, are also visible in many places that show comments including in the forum system. In addition, the entire blog system gathers content for everyone - but one can look at the accumulating content in many ways.

  • For example one can look at one writer's efforts - so one is seeing what is effectively a blog system for that one writer, or Sustainer.
  • One can also look at the content by topic, seeing blogs that are tagged as being about a certain topic - or place, as well. Thus, when doing that, it is a blog system about a topic, or a place, with many contributors.
  • One can look at only writer blogs, or only sustainer blogs, as well.
  • One can look at blogs for particular Groups, too.

All this is easily done using the left menu. Searches allow even more variables and refinements.


Creating Blog Posts

If you are a Sustainer with permission, and are logged in, you will see a link in the left menu for you to post a blog - and you can use that to post one, and then tag it various ways (such as with a topic or place, or a group tag), and once you do, it is in the system with you as the author.

You can also use the console button to the left to post a blog - anytime and from anywhere in the site, as long as you are logged in.

Meanwhile, enjoy the blogs - and, by the way, if you are a Free Member or a Sustainer with a ZSpace page, of course you can put one or more content boxes on it, pulling blog links of any sort you may want to filter for, for example, by you or by your friends or by others - and by topic, about places, for groups, etc.

Blogs

678691

Roger Bybee's Blog

Web Address: http://www.zcommunications.org/zspace/rogerdbybee
Bio: I've recently been invited  to write a twice-weekly blog in In These Times, appearing Tuesdays and Thursdays (go to www.inthesetimes.com and flick the In These Times Working link at the top of... (More)

All Bybee Blogs

Obama lets confusion reign on his parade

By Roger Bybee at Sep 19, 2009


Change Text Size a- | A+

Obama, Dems' create reign of confusion on their healthcare parade

 

President Barack Obama's drive for national healthcare reform has been hobbled for many reasons, including the role of major campaign contributions in distorting the debate.

From the start, the most popular option of the Amerian people--single-payer healthcare as in Canada and Taiwan--has been ruled "off the table,"  in the words of Max Baucus.

Numerous polls have tested public support for the concept, but perhaps the most precise and rigorously worded survey was reported in Business Week (5/16/05): "67% of all Americans think it's a good idea to guarantee healthcare for all US citizens, as Canada and Britain do, with just 27% dissenting," US doctors, too have come to support the "Medicare for All" model by an overwhelming 59%margin, as the Annals of Internal Medicine reported in 2008. Moreover, 70% of Democratic voters in the 2008 primaries favored single-payer.*

 

Flowing from this policy decision shared by top Democrats, the Democratic message has been contradictory and confused. If insurers are the heart of the problem, why include them at the bargaining table? Why include them in the new system when all they do is add a 31% administrative burden, costing some $400 billion annually?

The result among the public, understandably, is confusion. Paul Street, in his excellent piece in the current Z, spotlighted this example:

When Obama gave an uninspiring prime-time press conference in support of Democrat-led health reform last July, much of the public didn't follow his logic on why it should support his curiously corporate-captive version of "change." All too common was the reaction of Rowena Ventura, 44, an uninsured worker who had just moved her ailing mother into a house she shared with her disabled husband. "You see," she said, gesturing at the president on her television, "he's saying he wants to continue private insurance, but then he says they're part of the problem. Well, which is it? It's just ridiculous" (K. Sack, "For Public, Obama Didn't Fill in Health Blanks," New York Times, July 23, 2009)

Meanwhile, the Right has been actively and visibly mobilizing those hold distinctly marginal views against healthcare reform, creating the false impression of a popular uprising against a health plan that too ambitiously involves the federal government, according to the conventional wisdom.

But as with the Clintons' health plan in 1993-94, the effort to accomodate insurers--while imposing the minimal safeguard of a small-scale "public option" to contain costs, the Democrats' multiple plans lack a clear focus on dealing with the elephant in the room: the for-profit insurers.

While the insurers are among the very least popular industries in the US, the Democrats have chosen to keep them at the center of the healthcare universe, resulting in yet another complex, confusing set of plans.

Proposing a single-payer plan would have generated hysterical accusations of "socialism," but as linguist Geroge Lakoff told me in a recent interview, that happened anyway with the much weaker public option.

Clearly, the Democrats could have put together a more coherent campaign by targeting the much-despised insurers--a ripe target with their recent 428% increase in profits and astronomical CEO pay. They could have then offered a solution that corresponded clearly and directly to the problems posed by insurers, simple, understandable alternative of a singlepayer plan..

uyer.

 

*Paul Street cites a number of other surveys that confirm the general direction of the polls reported in Business Week and Annals of Internal Medicine:

  • 64 percent would pay higher taxes to guarantee health care for all U.S. citizens (CNN Opinion Research Poll, May 2007)
  • 69 percent think it is the responsibility of the federal government to provide health coverage to all U.S. citizens (Gallup Poll, 2006)  
  • 59 percent support a single-payer health insurance system (CBS/New York Times poll, January 2009)
  • 59 percent of doctors back a single-payer system (Annals of Internal Medicine, April 2008)
  • 73 percent feel that health care is either in a "state of crisis" or has "major problems" (Gallup, November 2007)
  • 71 percent feel that we need "fundamental changes" or to have the U.S. health system "completely re-built," compared to just 24 percent who wish only for "minor changes" (Pew Research Center, 2009)

 

589024

By Petersen, Robert at Sep 20, 2009 11:03 AM

Fantastic summary!  I demanded two policy changes from the new Obama administration.  First, end the U.S. military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan.  And second, spend the savings on policies of social uplift, chief among them, universal health care.  It now appears we’re going to lose the best opportunity to enact a universal system that has crossed our path since Truman was President.  Shame!!!  New boss, same as the old boss. 

 

Reply this comment

Loading_border