This is where we offer some of our thoughts and perspectives to you. We won't promise they're better than anyone else's. Or even right. But we'll at least provide interesting ways of looking at things.
Combined with the information we provide in the other parts of this site, we hope to encourage interesting and meaningful conversations about things that affect you.
WE NEED YOUR HELP
If this article helped your understanding, please consider a small donation to help us keep doing this.
It costs money to publish News in FiVe, and contributions are our only source of funding.
Even a dollar or three every so often makes a difference.
In return, we'll keep providing you the most relevant, understandable, and accessible news and information.
It's secure and takes only about a minute.
Who loves you?
Date: 2017-Mar-30           Author: Barry Shatzman
I attend organized discussions from time to time with people who have a broad mix of political leanings. You'd think we wouldn't be able to agree on anything, but actually we end up agreeing more than disagreeing.
For example... when i asked a staunch conservative who considers any government intervention in health care policy a gross violation of his rights... what he would like from such a policy at the end of the day... his answer included providing coverage for the most people, at the best price, with the best care.
Another conservative wanted to argue violently that government should be our servant, not our master. Funny how nobody argued back.
So what do you get when you put both of those things together? Not only do you get the idea that we all want the people we elect to represent our best interests to actually represent our best interests, but we even can agree on ways we can measure them.
Which brings me to two things Congress did this past week.
First, they tried to pass a health care bill that not only would achieve the opposite of we agreed we'd want, but that would take virtually every dollar that that government wouldn't spend and give it to insurance companies and to those with incomes exceeding $200,000 a year.
So i guess you can say you're being well represented by those who supported it - if you own an insurance company or make more than $200,000 a year.
A second thing they did was rescind an Obama administration rule that would have prevented internet service providers from selling your personal information without your consent.
Tell me... since we all agree that the government's only role is to help its constituents... that helps you how?
It definitely helps the internet service providers such as AT&T, Sprint, Verizon, and Comcast.
Their argument was the rule would have made them less able to compete with companies such as Google and Yahoo. But can you explain how that makes sense? For one thing, Google and Yahoo are free. And you can choose to use them or not. You need an ISP, and i've yet to find one that's free.
But they're also just different. Just like there's a difference between a public park and the road you drive on to get there.
Because the American Health Care Act was pulled before it could be voted on, you might not know how your representative would have voted on it.
But there were votes in the Senate and House of Representatives on the nullification of the internet privacy protections. You can find links to the votes at our discussion of the bill. Find your representative, see how he or she voted, and you'll know whether they're representing your interest or the telecommunications companies'.
And if it's the telecommunications companies' interests, then let the telecommunications companies vote for them in the next election. You'd be better off voting for someone else.