Centrism Is A Corporate Scam. DON'T FALL FOR IT.

Today, the "centrists" try to define centrism as this notion that we must cut taxes for corporations and the rich while reigning in "entitlements" for the middle class and poor. Centrists will tell us this is the "reasonable approach". These are corporate stooges who put on $2000 suits, go on tv, and try to redefine their version of the center as "reasonable" and rebrand trickle down economics to distract from the fact that it has failed us for the past 30 years. They try to convince the viewer or listener or reader that they are being completely reasonable and non-ideological and just want what's best for our country.

And it's all bullshit. It's a corporate scam. There are no centrists. Centrists are politically unaware, socially unaware, and economically unaware. The fact is, at this point in US history, we are two separate countries. You're either FOR continuous economic inequality, social oppression, and political obstruction, or you're AGAINST it. Where the center is defined today isn't centrism, it's conservatism in sheep's clothing. Centrism doesn't exist, it's a corporate scam to put a smiley face on the right wing agenda of continuing to crush the middle class, exploit workers, and reap massive profits.

This is probably why you are broke and stuff

It's Conservative Economics That Breed Govt. Dependency, Liberal Economics Would Lower It.

With all of their talk about lowering govt dependency, conservative economics actually creates it. When your policies are about keeping wages low, slashing pensions, crushing unions, forced childbirth, cutting education, cutting healthcare, outsourcing jobs, destroying social benefit programs like SS and Medicare, allowing Wall St. to raid retirement savings, defunding investments in science and technology, infrastructure and transportation, starting endless wars, corporate welfare, and defunding America by giving tax breaks to the wealthy, then like Bill Maher recently said, "if Colonel Sanders won't pay a living wage, then Uncle Sam is going to have to". Conservative economics makes the American Dream practically unattainable. The conservative idea of the American Dream is: be born rich, and if you're not, then serve your corporate masters with hard labor and low wages.

On the other hand, Liberal economics would raise the living wage, therefore cutting govt. dependency, fund education, technology, and science, which would lead to a smarter, more productive and well paid work force. Making healthcare more accessible which would lead to a healthier population and further financial stability, both of which would also lower govt dependency. Strengthen SS and Medicare, pensions and retirement investments, which would lead to less of the population needing food assistance and welfare programs to get by in their senior years. Strengthening unions which allow for a thriving middle class earning decent wages. And of course, NO MORE WAR, which not only bankrupts our country, but creates far too many war veterans who not only have to use the already stretched VA medical, but because of low pay and possible disabilities, must also use far more govt assistance programs. Liberal economics makes the American Dream far more attainable, and not only for those born rich, but for all. And a thriving, educated, healthy workforce and population leads to much less govt dependency and far more tax revenue. Which not only makes our citizens physically happier, but mentally happier as well.

Note: I have absolutely no problem with my tax money going towards these social safety nets, I actually prefer it any day over my tax money going for war or corporate subsidies, because we are not playing by the rules of Liberal economics, we are still playing in this broken system of conservative trickle down economics, which has made our citizens far too thirsty due to lack of "trickling down". So as long as we're in this broken and obviously failed conservative economic system, I am all for helping those adversely effected by the negative effects of such a system and will fiercely defend those marginalized voices over pandering to the wealthy any day, 24/7 365. The conservative alternative would be to cut all assistance programs and let the people suffer. Conservatism is cannibalizing our country.

Obamacare 'rate shock' victim changes her mind, calls the law a 'blessing in disguise'

As the #Obamacare website gets fixed, expect to see more stories like this

Well, just not on FOX news.

In Colorado, A Couple Finds Relief In Obamacare

There's plenty of criticism of the Affordable Care Act and how it's being implemented.

But let's introduce you to someone who is quite pleased with her Obamacare experience: Lela Petersen of Flagler, Colo. She's a small business owner with a very big health insurance bill.

But thanks to the health law, she expects that bill will be cut by more than half in January.

Petersen is 57, and her husband, Mike, is 60. They have some pre-existing conditions. He has diabetes. She has a back injury. The HMO policy they've carried since 1992 has risen over the years to $1,950 per month, just for the two of them.

"When you pay $1,950 for insurance you might as well forget retirement," says Petersen says. "There's just no way." Five years ago, she was planning on an early retirement, but she didn't anticipate health insurance costing as much as the rest of her bills combined.

At the beginning of October she checked out Colorado's insurance exchange and found the exact same policy from the same insurer for only $832 a month. "It's dropping us down about $1,100 a month. We can retire. We can go fishing. We can actually see a future," says Petersen.

The rest (surprisingly from NPR) http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2013/11/05/242416423/in-colorado-a-couple-finds-relief-in-obamacare

Fellow NY'ers, how are you voting on Prop 1 and other amendments?

Non NY'ers feel free to give your opinion on how you would vote as well.

Proposal 1 | Authorizing Casino Gaming

The proposed amendment to section 9 of article 1 of the Constitution would allow the Legislature to authorize up to seven casinos in New York State for the legislated purposes of promoting job growth, increasing aid to schools, and permitting local governments to lower property taxes through revenues generated. Shall the amendment be approved?

An umbrella prohibition against gambling was added to the State Constitution in 1894. The Constitution has since been amended to allow certain forms of gambling – including state lotteries and wagering on horse racing – but casino gambling remains illegal in New York.

This proposal would amend the State Constitution to permit casino gambling at no more than seven facilities statewide for the legislated purposes of promoting job growth, increasing aid to schools, and permitting local governments to lower property taxes through revenues generated. Under a law enacted by the state legislature this year, if the ballot proposal is passed, up to four casinos could be placed right away in three upstate regions: the Hudson Valley-Catskill area, the Capital District- Saratoga area, and the Southern Tier. The law prohibits additional casinos for at least seven years.

Under this law, if this ballot proposal does not pass, gambling would be authorized at up to four new video lottery gaming facilities.

From the website:

Reasons to Vote YES»
Casinos will jumpstart the economies of economically depressed regions upstate by attracting tourists, creating jobs, and generating revenue.» This will generate substantial tax revenues for state and local governments. Most of these revenues would be used to finance public education and lower property taxes.» Casino gambling is a fun recreational activity that should be more accessible to New Yorkers.» Many state residents already visit casinos in neighboring states such as New Jersey and Connecticut. New York should reap the profits from New York residents’ gambling, not these other states.» There should be a coherent, uniform state policy with respect to casino gambling. New York already permits video lottery terminals at racetracks and has five Vegas-style casinos on Native American tribal land, as permitted under federal law.

Reasons to Vote NO»
Legalized casinos are a predatory scheme to raise money from the poor and vulnerable. They would lead to an increase in compulsive gambling, which has financial and social consequences for victims and their loved ones.» Casinos attract illegal activities such as forgery, fraud, theft, embezzlement, and prostitution. These and other problems caused by gambling could cost the state nearly $400 million per year.» We should not permit casinos in New York before we more carefully study their potential impact. Casinos do not guarantee economic development, and sometimes have little overall economic effect.» Casinos in New York will not be especially profitable, and will have a limited impact on regional economies, because the Northeast has recently become saturated with casinos.» This proposal would have minimal short-term impact downstate because casinos would not be developed in New York City and nearby counties for at least seven years.» We’re always promised that new state revenues will go toward education and lowering taxes, but this never seems to happen.
---------------------------------------------
The AFL-CIO is endorsing it while the NY State Conservative party is opposing it.

Here's all 6 proposals on the ballot, how will you be voting?:
http://www.nyccfb.info/public/voter-guide/general_2013/ballot_proposals.aspx

Yes, men should pay for pregnancy coverage, and here's why:

Anti-Obamacare conservatives are chuckling over an exchange from the House's grilling of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius on Wednesday morning, in which Rep. Renee Ellmers (R-N.C.) challenged Sebelius to explain why men should have to pay for maternity coverage in their health insurance plans.

"To the best of your knowledge, has a man ever delivered a baby?" Ellmers asked. Ellmers and her cheering section seem to think this was hilarious, a conclusive, slam-dunk, let-me-hear-a-rimshot punchline. "Ellmers was on her 'A' game," the deep thinkers over at Breitbart decided.

The reality is, of course, that Ellmers' question revealed only her profound ignorance about how health insurance works, and her lack of desire to learn. And that goes for everyone else who thought this was a smart, telling blow.

Let's examine why maternity care is written into all insurance policies under the Affordable Care Act. The reasons fall into three categories. In ascending order of importance, they are:

The rest: http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-pregnancy-20131101,0,5148721.story#axzz2jVUwhB7l

GOP Unveils Its Own Healthcare Website

G.O.P. UNVEILS OWN HEALTH-CARE WEB SITE, EMERGENCYROOM.GOV


WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—Saying that “the American people are fed up with a disastrous Web site that doesn’t work and never will,” House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Virginia) and a phalanx of congressional Republicans today unveiled their own health-care Web site, EmergencyRoom.gov.

“At EmergencyRoom.gov, every American can access the one tried-and-true health-care system that has worked in this country for decades,” he said.

While Healthcare.gov has frustrated many users with its difficult-to-navigate design, Rep. Cantor said that at EmergencyRoom.gov, “Health care is just three easy steps away. One: enter your zip code. Two: see the list of emergency rooms. Three: get to the nearest one before you die.”

The Virginia Republican wasted no time touting the cost savings of EmergencyRoom.gov, comparing it favorably with the notoriously expensive Obamacare site: “Unlike Healthcare.gov, which private contractors built at a cost running into the hundreds of millions, EmergencyRoom.gov was built for nine hundred dollars by my intern Josh.”


The rest: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/borowitzreport/2013/10/gop-unveils-own-health-care-web-site-emergencyroomgov.html?

I heard on NPR this morning that those health policies being cancelled only make up 5%

Of the already insured population, and they also said that of those 5%, about half of them will actually wind up paying less for insurance if they re-enroll in Obamacare. They said that around 80% of the population is already covered by employer, Medicare, or Medicaid, and only about 5% have these sub par insurance policies that they purchase privately on their own out of pocket. Amazing how the rest of the media would have you believe this is a National disaster when the truth is Obamacare is on the verge of being a huge success. Sorry, Republicans: the ACA gets at least as much time to work as the Iraq War took.

Since the MSM won't do its job, lets hear about #Obamacare from ACTUAL recipients.