Independent Voters Poem

Possibly the greatest issue 

of independent company

is not knowing 


what you're going to get

like chocolates


Are they all cherry cordials

or do you realize every one's values

diverge


each susceptible to

immediate return

unto their box


Discriminating tastes . . . discriminate. 

Concerns Across Globe Despite Ideals of Universal Healthcare

Is there anywhere where healthcare is a good system for all? We'd appreciate getting some real opinions from people on universal healthcare.

United States proponents of universal or single-payer healthcare compare the inflated cost of healthcare in the states to the 'free' care that so many receive elsewhere. We emphasize "free" out of familiarity to the trend of the bitter shouts, "Nothing is free!" and offended queries, "Why should I have to help you?!" Any comments that exhibit this kind of behavior are kind of useless and waste good energy, so keep that in mind. Everyone knows the money has to be contributed to the applicable system, one way or another.

In the U.S., what has been a healthcare system that offers the best care to those with the most inflated personal bank accounts and insurance policies, our collective envy of other countries that offer universal care programs is boosted by thousands of social media conversations in which foreigners support their healthcare systems with verve, indicating that they never have to pay for anything and that it's a terrific system because they are able to acquire the care that they need (even if it is limited, at least they're able to seek regular basic and most forms of extended care). However, when we look around, we do find other stories.

Keynesian Liberal writes with another point of view, which should prompt everyone to thoroughly consider our options. So many people in the United States don't receive any care at all. How does that compare to the "crisis" unfolding in Europe?

An Address to So-Called Pervasive Liberal Bias

Conservatives may complain about an existence of a pervasive liberal bias in media, but the fact is that this was never the case; at least, not the way in which the phrase is inferred tonally by conservative leadership and taken to sick hearts by mean-spirited conservative followers. Especially because liberalism is the very root of our existence as United States citizens, let’s reclaim liberalism as the descriptor of openness and possibility that it aims to be. Liberalism is not a dirty word, but an open quality that encourages healthy community . . . something we should be working hard to maintain in our diverse nation. The biggest risk of failing to do so is in falling to the cultural separations meant to divide us. It's critically important that we support our own diversity.

Regarding liberal media bias, while one may consider media and information access in general to be an issue of disruption and regard it negatively, or positively, that perception depends on political leanings, personal ethic, religion, and other attributes of a person during a given time. In no way should there be an expectation that there wouldn’t be input from stances of liberalism.

Why Liberal Bias in Media isn’t a [bad] Thing

It's supposed to be there! In 1949, the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC) introduced the Fairness Doctrine-- policy that required licensed media broadcasters to present both sides of controversial issues. Further, any answering/opposing arguments to publicized, broadcast presentations were ruled to be accessible to air free of charge, in the interest of informed debate and an informed public with access to equal time in delivery of messages that affect the public. More, the Fairness Doctrine required that licensed broadcasters bother to present issues that impact or affect the public.

We could regard this period of time as another, previous technological information age—spurred by a burgeoning, uniquely American sense of social responsibility which naturally came on the heels of much historical growth, progress, and change.

Prior to today's internet-based information age (yet unregulated) during the broadcast TV and radio heyday, under rule of laws of fairness, were one of media and journalism’s highest claims to resonance and trust. It wasn't until 1987 that the FCC under pressure eliminated that equanimous policy, which amounted to 40- years of opportunity for equal exchange of ideas and provision of information to the public at large. That doesn’t look at all like ‘pervasive liberal bias’, does it?

Why Liberal Media Bias Still isn’t a thing to mock 

The Internet, of course, is our modern technological information age . . . one so expansive (not limited to the local family television) that it's inherent, groundbreaking public accessibility is more key to its function than any federal rule could be today.

Repeals of the Fairness Doctrine and Net Neutrality Portend Injury to Democratic Republic

Changes in media broadcasting after repeal of the Fairness Doctrine became apparent as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and like neoconservative allies rose to fame on the freedom of free speech-turned-weapon fueled by lack of regulating standards of access and public broadcast. Since 1987, the public has witnessed, for example, media bastions like FOX News sharpen their public angles to a shiny neoconservative tip.

We’ve seen the births of new, varietal conservative media organizations in television and radio broadcasting—as well, online—fill the immense space opened by:

1. a deregulated broadcasting industry  
2. eventual technological advancement, plus accessibility, of the internet. 

Yet, just as we’re faring our way through this latter open space and doing a decent job of taming that frontier in the public interest and in our personal interests, making ourselves productive again after economic collapse brought on by greed, etc., we’re met with the repeal of Net Neutrality. 

Only time can tell if the reactionary politics of social progress undertaken during the recessions, financial collapse, and political suppression of liberalism (under the guise of religion) during the new millennium have managed to dull any sharp tips of conservatism at all. If we're paying attention, a notable gnaw at one’s subconscious might indicate an alarming trend against not only liberalism but its close companion individualism, without which any ideas of independence become awash in loss of self. 

It's worth considering the damage we've done to ideas of independence and actual progress in the minds of a global public by squashing individual pursuits and placing people into boxes labeled according to personal dogmas, when our job is to maintain a public standard conducive to individual progress-- that necessary bastion of group progress. We should ask ourselves how we can have effective independent candidates when we refuse to respect the individual, the public interest, and public accessibility. We should look at what our current president had to relinquish in order to acquire the political position he was after. Not money, not power . . . but belief. How would you define that?

Liberalism: The Pervasive Bias of Conscious, Self-Sustaining Life

Life itself is pervasive. We can view that from a negative or positive standpoint, and we do. "Pervasive liberal bias" isn't a [bad] thing. Rather, it's not much more than a progressive push for life, for individualism (quality of life), which itself is an ideal long lost on us today . . . and that, dear friends, is against the grain of a healthy society.

Further Reading:

Learn about Net Neutrality (recently repealed)
"Brace" yourselves to be sidelined via Net Neurtality
Definition of political/ideological liberalism via Britannica