Tuesday, June 30, 2015

The Obama DEBACLE Week 336: Headline Links from the Nachumlist


A Conservative News and Opinion Resource
A continuous record of the White House and its administration
 The Obama Administration: Year Seven
President Obama's Three Hundred and Thirty-Sixth Week in Office
News and Notes:   Some are considering flying their flags upside down
pic cred to rushlimbaugh.com

 Video/Audio of the moment:  Ad: Tell Schumer to Stand Firm on Iran
It's 3am and nobody's there
Community Organizer to the World
Obama and Syria
Obama and Israel, Year 7
Is Obama Gay?
Obama Amnesty
Obama and Agenda 21
Obama Ethics, Year 7
Obama vs the US Military

Thank You nachumlist.

Grasping Grifter The Next Generation: Chelsea Clinton Demands $65,000 For 10 Minute Speech At Public University


Hillary 2.0
Chelsea Clinton demanded $65,000 to make a 10-minute speech at a public university after they balked at her mother’s appearance fee, it has been revealed. 
The University of Missouri at Kansas City was looking for a celebrity to open their women’s hall of fame in February 2014.
Their initial choice was former Secretary of State and presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.
But when they were told how much it would cost – $275,000 – they turned it down and went to what they thought was the next best thing.
Thank You Daily Mail and Nick.

Video: People Misled & Shocked By Leftist MSM: Mistake 'Dead Broke' Clinton Mansions For Republican Cribs

From the good folks at Campus Reform via weaselzippers

Nothing wrong with being rich, but there is something wrong when you claim to be ‘dead broke’, sanctimoniously tout ‘income inequality’ and claim to be for everyday Americans while living it up like a rock star.
[Ed: and then some.] 
Hillary Clinton has vowed to be a champion for “everyday Americans.”
The former Secretary of State—who once described herself and husband Bill Clinton as “dead broke”—kicked off her campaign on June 13 and in her 45-minute speech on New York City’s Roosevelt Island, Clinton delivered a message similar to her initial presidential announcement.
“Americans have fought their way back from tough economic times,” Clinton said in the video announcement on April 12. “But the deck is still stacked in favor of those at the top.”
So what do Millennials think of a candidate who criticizes the “1 percent,” but simultaneously owns multi-million dollar properties in Washington, D.C. and New York and spends her summers in the Hamptons? Campus Correspondent Cabot Phillips took to the streets of our nation’s capitol to find out in Campus Reform’s debut of “Candidate’s Cribs.”
Thank You Nick and CR. 

Monday, June 29, 2015

The Orwellian King-Burwell Majority

For those who say it doesn't matter who you vote for. They're all crooks. 

The 6 judges on this Court who just told us all to go take a flying leap at ourselves beg to differ.


Troubling implications beyond the further erosion of the separation of powers.

Bruce Thornton is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center
Last week’s decision in King vs. Burwell, in which Chief Justice John Roberts magically conjured ambiguity out of straightforward language, has troubling implications beyond the further erosion of the separation of powers. From ancient Athens to George Orwell, the violation of the integrity of language by sophistical legerdemain has been recognized as the eternal enabler of political tyranny.
The 6-3 decision, which legitimized giving federal subsidies to people living in states without an exchange, obviously contradicts the law as written. What the majority of the Court did was to rewrite legislation in clear violation of the Constitution’s separation of powers, which gives the law-making power to Congress. As Justice Scalia wrote in dissent, the majority “ignores the American people’s decision to give Congress ‘[a]ll legislative Powers’ enumerated in the Constitution. They made Congress, not this Court, responsible for both making laws and mending them.” 
This usurpation of legislative power in turn depended on ignoring the plain language of the law. Again Scalia: “Words no longer have meaning if an Exchange that is not established by a State is ‘established by the State.’” One recalls Thucydides’ famous observations on the corruption of language by contests for political domination: “Words had to change their ordinary meaning and to take that which was now given them.” So too in King vs. Burwell, the majority has changed the “ordinary meaning” of the word “state” and made it take on the meaning “federal government.”
Yet this political abuse of language by the Court is nothing new. In the first Obamacare case three years ago, National Federation of Independent Business vs. Sebelius, Justice Roberts justified unconstitutionally imposing a financial “penalty” on those without medical insurance by calling it a “tax,” rewriting the law in contradiction of the frequently publicized intent of those writing the law that the penalty was not a tax. The “ordinary meaning” of “penalty” was changed to “tax.” Just as “War is Peace” and “Ignorance is Strength” in 1984’s Oceania, now in America “State is Federal Government” and “Penalty is Tax.”
But long before these two decisions we have been subjected to bad laws predicated on disrespect for clear language. Sexual harassment law, with its vague language like “hostile and intimidating,” has been an inducement to use the law as a weapon in interpersonal and professional disputes by inviting subjective, irrational, self-interested, and preposterous interpretations of what constitutes “hostile and intimidating.” Title IX similarly encourages using subjective or even neurotic “feelings” to determine that a woman “on the basis of sex” has been discriminated against. These laws violate one of the fundamental aims of clear writing–– precision. It is no wonder, then, that they have generated countless acts of injustice and censorship backed by the coercive power of the state.
Using vague language and violating the clear meaning of words undermine the fundamental idea opposed to tyranny––that citizens are ruled by laws and not men, for a free state functions by verbal deliberation and written laws. Thus the precision and stability of language lies at the heart of political freedom. Scalia alludes to this fundamental principle: “The Court forgets that ours is a government of laws and not of men. That means we are governed by the terms of our laws, not by the unenacted will of our lawmakers.” And both rulings have replaced the legislative mechanism for exercising that “rule by law”–– elected representatives, accountable to the people, write the laws––with rule by decree based on the ideological preferences or prejudices of an elite. 
In “Politics and the English Language,” Orwell said, “Political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible,” and “Political language . . . is designed to make lies sound truthful.” The corrupted, dishonest language of these Supreme Court decisions is an expression of political, not legal speech, and the effect is to defend both the indefensible weakening of the Constitution, and the concentration of power in the federal government. 
In other words, these decisions are serving the century-long progressive program of replacing a republic of separated powers designed to protect freedom and individual rights, with a technocratic oligarchy of concentrated and expanding powers designed to aggrandize itself and eliminate the mediating institutions––state governments, churches, businesses, and private organizations––that could check its ambitions. We see this aim in the writings of Woodrow Wilson, who in 1887 complained that the president “was empowered [by the veto] to prevent bad laws, but he was not to be given an opportunity to make good ones,” and who longed to “open for the public a bureau of skilled, economical administration” made up of the “hundreds who are wise” empowered to rule the thousands who are “selfish, ignorant, timid, stubborn, or foolish.” We read it too in Progressivism’s foremost theorist, Herbert Croly, when in 1909 he wrote, “The people are not Sovereign as individuals . . . They become Sovereign only in so far as they succeed in reaching and expressing a collective purpose.” And we hear it in a speech of FDR in 1932, when he spoke of “modifying and controlling our economic units,” “distributing wealth and products more equitably,” qualifying “the freedom of action of individual units within the business,” and effecting “the re-definition of these rights [of property] in terms of a changing and growing social order.” 
Today it’s obvious that the progressives’ “collective purpose” is being realized: for decades the federal government has been subordinating businesses and churches to the federal government, weakening the powers of the sovereign states, pursuing “social justice” through laws written by anonymous, unelected, unaccountable executive office functionaries, and working to achieve radical egalitarianism by the redistribution of property through tax law and social welfare entitlements. What is missing from this “collective purpose” are the foundational purposes of the American Republic: the protection of individual rights and property, the fostering of political freedom and autonomy, and defending both freedom and rights against the tyrannical ambitions of elites and masses alike. Rather, today we see at work ––in the executive tyranny of Barack Obama, in the intrusive regulatory power of unelected agencies like the IRS and the EPA, and in the hubris of the Supreme Court in rewriting plainly written law to serve the progressive agenda––the “new instruments of public power” of the sort that FDR boasted about in 1936.  Lost has been the Founders’ concern to protect the people’s freedom from the tendency of power to corrupt those who possess it.
This dismantling of the Constitutional political order has depended on the corruption of language. As Orwell wrote in 1946, “One ought to recognise that the present political chaos is connected with the decay of language, and that one can probably bring about some improvement by starting at the verbal end.” If we want to recover our political heritage, we need, as Scalia did in his dissent, to continually call out the violence against language that has always accompanied the expansion of tyranny.
Thank You Mr Thornton and frontpagemag.

Puerto Rico's Democrat Governor Says Their Municipal Bond Debts Are "Not Payable"

U.S. taxpayers to the rescue!
Via NY Times
Puerto Rico’s governor, saying he needs to pull the island out of a “death spiral,” has concluded that the commonwealth cannot pay its roughly $72 billion in debts, an admission that will probably have wide-reaching financial repercussions.
The governor, Alejandro García Padilla, and senior members of his staff said in an interview last week that they would probably seek significant concessions from as many as all of the island’s creditors, which could include deferring some debt payments for as long as five years or extending the timetable for repayment.
“The debt is not payable,” Mr. García Padilla said. “There is no other option. I would love to have an easier option. This is not politics, this is math.”
It is a startling admission from the governor of an island of 3.6 million people, which has piled on more municipal bond debt per capita than any American state.
A broad restructuring by Puerto Rico sets the stage for an unprecedented test of the United States municipal bond market, which cities and states rely on to pay for their most basic needs, like road construction and public hospitals.
That market has already been shaken by municipal bankruptcies in Detroit; Stockton, Calif.; and elsewhere, which undercut assumptions that local governments in the United States would always pay back their debt.
Thank You NYT and Dapandico.

1.3 Million Got Disability Payments For 'Mood Disorders' Including 33% of Beneficiaries In Puerto Rico.

Oh Noes!

Social Justice Sociologist Denounces "Bedtime Reading Privilege"

"But I’ve come to the conclusion that the West is unfairly advantaged by having so many sociologists, critical race theorists and social justice warriors. If we all deported them to poor countries, they could finally catch up to us in the field of social justice.
As much as it might pain us to lose these demented parasites respected academics, it’s the right thing to do. No longer will we enjoy our vast advantages in sociology and theories on gendered icebergs (yes it’s a thing). The rest of the world will now be able to benefit from having a declining economy and an academic environment that consists of crazy people denouncing others for thoughtcrimes."
Thank You Mr Greenfield.

Are you in Puerto Rico?

Would you like your own Mood Disorder Disability Check?

Psychologists In Puerto Rico.

Psychiatrists in Puerto Rico.

Sunday, June 28, 2015

EPA's Gina McCarthy and Obama's Totalitarians

Global Warming Skeptics are not 'Normal People'. 
EPA Chief Diagnoses Dissenters Soviet Style. 

June 26, 2015 by  

Soviet dissident Andrei Sakharov disappeared from public view in early May, 1984 after he had begun a hunger strike to get permission for his wife, Yelena Bonner, to travel to the U.S. for heart surgery. In the Soviet paradise, wanting one’s anti-Soviet wife to live, and, worse still, to be saved by evil capitalist surgeons and not by the holy surgeons of the Soviet utopia, was, clearly, an exercise in abnormal psychology.
Sakharov was undoubtedly “mentally ill.” No wonder, therefore, that Soviet authorities forcibly confined him in a closed ward of the Semashko Hospital in Gorky, where he was force-fed and given drugs to alter his state of mind. This is how Soviet authorities believed they would get the Soviet dissident to not only stop caring about his wife, but to also make a public recantation about his abnormal anti-Soviet views – a gambit in which they ultimately failed.
The Soviet system had a long and cruel record of perverting psychiatry to abuse political dissidents. Labelling many thought-criminals ”insane,” the communist regime institutionalized them under horrifying conditions in mental hospitals and force-fed them dangerous and mind-shattering drugs. Dissidents such as Pyotr Grigorenko, Joseph Brodsky, Alexander Esenin-Volpin, Vladimir Bukovsky and Natalya Gorbanevskaya were among the brave heroes who did not elude this grotesque form of Soviet barbarity. Grigorenko was forcibly committed to a special psychiatric hospital for criticizing the Khrushchev regime. Brodksy was sent to mental hospitals for not writing the right kind of poetry; his treatments involved “tranquilizing” injections, sleep deprivation and forced freezing baths. Esenin-Volpin was institutionalized in the Leningrad Special Psychiatric Hospital for his anti-Soviet thoughts. Bukovsky was also confined to the same psychiatric hospital for “anti-Soviet agitation.” Gorbanevskaya was committed to a psychiatric hospital for, among other “abnormality” crimes, attending the 1968 Red Square demonstration against the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia.

And now enter the leftist totalitarians of the Obama stripe. While anti-Soviet ideas caused dissidents to be confined to psychiatric institutions in the Soviet Union, the soil is now being fertilized for the same process in the American leftist land of Alinskyite hope and change. Indeed, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Gina McCarthy consoled leftists worldwide this past Tuesday, engaging in Soviet-style labeling vis-à-vis global warming dissidents that would have made Leonid Brezhnev and Yuri Andropov proud. Addressing an audience at a White House summit, she stated that “normal people,” and not climate skeptics, would win the debate on global warming. She made the comment in the context of why the EPA had issued a recent report on global warming’s negative impacts on public health, stressing that, “It’s normal human beings that want us to do the right thing, and we will if you help us.”
The contention that global warming skeptics are not “normal people” is, of course, a normal sentiment coming from a leftist. The Left, as the history of the Soviet regime and other communist regimes has well revealed, breathes it oxygen by labeling. The opponents of the messianic utopian cause are always “evil” and/or “mentally deranged” to one extent or another. And these labels are very effective in demonizing and dehumanizing dissidents — especially when the labels have that little inconvenient limitation of not having any relationship to the actual facts. There is enough evidence to suggest, after all, that man-made global warming is the myth that the skeptics say it is. A strong presentation of the facts by Shillman Fellow Daniel Greenfield on this score can be found here and here.
Gina McCarthy’s totalitarian attitude toward global warming skeptics parallels, of course, the Soviet mindset that forced Soviet dissidents into psychiatric hospitals and to be force-fed drugs. McCarthy and her superiors in the Obama administration do not, at this point, have the power to put the skeptics they are labeling into asylums, and to be administered “tranquilizing” injections and immersed into ice baths, but it is clear from their own words what their desires are – and what path they are clearing for the brave new world.
dad2The spheres of powerlessness and dehumanization being built by the Gina McCarthys of the Obama administration, to which dissidents and the opponents of “hope and change” are being banished, are somewhat of a personal issue for this writer. My father, Yuri Glazov, was a scholar at the Soviet Academy of Sciences and a professor at Moscow State University who became a “skeptic” about the Soviet paradise in which he lived. He attended human rights demonstrations in Moscow on behalf of political prisoners and signed letters of protest against Soviet political repressions. For not being “normal” in this particular regard, he was fired from his work and received a labor card with a special secret code that meant that he was blacklisted and could not receive employment anywhere in the country. The activities he had engaged in could land a Soviet citizen in the gulag or a psychiatric hospital for decades. But we were the lucky ones. The ones who got away.
My family never forgot, obviously, those who we left behind — and Joseph Brodsky, Alexander Esenin-Volpin, Vladimir Bukovsky and Natalya Gorbanevskaya were and are among our friends, and the torment they endured for not being “normal” remains etched in history and in our hearts, and we gauge very clearly the pernicious ideological seeds that spawned their persecution and suffering.
My family escaped a totalitarian hell to come to a free country to now face, in the most tragic and bizarre sense, the ideological cousins of our tormentors. The Left and its totalitarian gate-keepers are now in solid power here, slowly but surely building the prison walls and “psychiatric” spaces designed for the treatment of abnormal skeptics. Gina McCarthy and her ilk must be called out for exactly who they are — and for what they are intending to do. The unimaginable cruelties that Andrei Sakharov endured in the Semashko Hospital in Gorky in the mid-1980s must never be forgotten and must never leave our hearts, for they are the dividing lines in the battle between good and evil, despite the labels that try to camouflage the truth.
Thank You Mr Glazov and frontpagemag.

Sen Ted Cruz Gives Floor Speech On Rogue SCOTUS ObamaCare Ruling Last Week

ObamaCare should have died last Thursday. Instead an activist Court trashed even the concept of Law to keep the horror breathing.

Infection Preventionists Spend More Time On Data Collection Than Prevention

Write those regs and keep writing them until Everything is properly and efficiently Govt. regulated, and enforced, like our immigration laws.  

Compliance with HAI reporting rules takes five hours a day, researchers say

Hospital infection preventionists (IPs) spend more time reporting and collecting data than they do protecting patients from healthcare-associated infections(HAIs), according to new research.

Researchers, led by Sharon L. Parillo, R.N., assistant director of infection prevention at New Jersey's Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital Somerset, analyzed the time it took to comply with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services' HAI reporting requirements. They plan to present the results of their research this weekend at the 42nd Annual Conference of the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology (APIC).

They calculated that reporting activity takes up about five hours of a typical workday and, with a five-day workweek, 118.29 hours a month, leaving IPs with limited time for their other responsibilities such as rounding, safety drills, practice observation or answering safety-related questions. Moreover, the 355-bed community hospital where Parillo and her team conducted their research was only at 60 percent capacity.

"We are fortunate that we have two IPs on staff at our hospital, but many community hospitals have only one staff person dedicated to infection control," Parillo said in the announcement. "This analysis didn't even take into account the time necessary to perform state and local HAI reporting, which many facilities are also required to do."

The study backs up prior research indicating data collection and reporting are some of IPs' most time-consuming duties, said APIC 2015 President Mary Lou Manning, Ph.D. Manning recommended IPs use Parillo's research as the basis for more adequately-resourced infection prevention models, as well as calling on policymakers to consider less burdensome reporting legislation.

To learn more:
- read the research announcement via News Medical 

February 24, 2012 — 12:29pm ET | By 
"To date, the $77 million computer system, which went online in mid-2011, had prevented exactly one bad claim by late last year. That totaled $7,591."

Saturday, June 27, 2015

University of Cal. System Hits Bottom, Issues More Shovels


Gabriella Morrongiello

  • The pamphlet, distributed by the U-Cal. system, lists nearly 50 phrases, questions, and scenarios as offensive.
  • The list includes meritocracy and gender roles.
  • An extensive list of 'microaggressions' has been circulated to University of California instructors during recent faculty leadership seminars.
    According to the UC Office of the President, (note 1) the list is part of a growing effort to “broaden faculty leaders’ capacity to support faculty diversity and enhance department and campus climate toward inclusive excellence.”
    The comprehensive list, titled "Recognizing Microaggressions and the Messages They Send,” describes microaggressions as “negative messages” aimed at targeting persons “based solely upon their marginalized group membership.” The pamphlet deems nearly 50 phrases, questions, and scenarios offensive and describes the subliminal messages each sends.
    For example, statements asserting that "race or gender does not play a role in life successes” are offensive and perpetuate a “Myth of Meritocracy.” The list describes the following as such statements: “America is the land of opportunity;” “I believe the most qualified person should get the job;” or “Everyone in this society can succeed, if they work hard enough.”
    Assuming traditional gender roles is another common theme of microaggressions featured in the list. According to the UC System, glancing at a woman’s ring finger upon asking her age can be considered a microaggression as can asking a woman if she plans to have children while in postdoctoral training.
    The latter suggests that “[w]omen should be married during child-bearing ages because that is their primary purpose.”
    Other phrases that faculty were instructed to avoid include:
    “You people…”

    “You speak English very well.”

    “You are a credit to your race.”

    “There is only one race, the human race.”

    “Why are you always angry?”
    If an individual uses one of these phrases they may guilty of “assigning intelligence to a person of color or a woman based on his/her race/gender,” suggesting someone is “not a true American,” or advancing the notion that “values and communication styles of the dominant/White culture are ideal/’normal.’”
    Other tools and programs included in the leadership seminars provide faculty with guidance on “how to remove gender bias in hiring” and how to interrupt microaggressions.
    According to the The College Fix, the half-day seminars—which occurred throughout the 2014-2015 academic year—invited deans and department chairs from the 10 UC campuses to come together to address “campus climate issues,” and foster “inclusive excellence.”
    UC spokeswoman Shelly Meron says the programs are not intended to “curb open dialogue, debate or classroom discussions,” according to the Fix.
    Follow the author of this article on Twitter: @gabriellahope_

    Thank You Ms Morrongiello and campusreform.

    And yes, in case you had any doubts, that would be This University of California.

    UCSF Is #1 Top Grossing Public Hospital In The U.S. 

    Note 1: The Office of Janet Napolitano, who Also brought you: 

    Would anyone like to enter our 'Get a Clue' Voters sweepstake by identifying the rational underlying appointing Janet, Sec Homeland Security, Napolitano to the UC Presidency, along with her Federal Law Enforcement cronies, connections, and clout?

    Thursday, June 25, 2015

    Covered California Unsustainable?

    Keep letting these people elect themselves and they will keep handing you your ass. 

    Aaron Bandler | Jun 25, 2015
    "A report from CalWatchdog says that Covered CA’s enrollment numbers are too low, and as a result it will go bankrupt without any federal funding...."
    I remember when I was guest hosting for The Armstrong Williams Show a couple of years ago, and I was debating Obamacare with the Elder Chicks. They touted the state exchanges in Obamacare, and cited Covered CA as an example of the exchanges working.
    Unfortunately for the Elder Chicks and other supporters for the law, Covered CA is not working. In fact, it is going bankrupt.
    A report from CalWatchdog says that Covered CA’s enrollment numbers are too low, and as a result it will go bankrupt without any federal funding.
    The report cites Lanhee Chen of the Hoover Institute, who said that Covered CA only has 1.27 million enrollees, when they expected 1.8 million. Covered CA also only kept 65% of their enrollees.
    Chen points out that Covered CA makes money off of each enrollee, and while they are expecting $242 million in revenue, the lack of enrollees will put them well short of that number and will be “unsustainable”.
    This should not be surprising. Critics of Obamacare have warned about the “death spiral” of not having enough enrollees that would result in premium spikes. What we are seeing with Covered CA is the death spiral happening before our very eyes.
    Chen said that the bureaucracy was a huge factor for the lack of enrollees.
    “Covered California required Californians who wanted to buy subsidized coverage to complete their enrollments by telephone, even where a Web-based option was available,” Chen told The Heartland Institute. “This added layer of bureaucracy is demonstrative of why Obamacare is driving up costs in our health care system and ultimately making it more difficult for people to get access to quality, affordable health coverage.”
    Back in October, Chriss Street at Breitbart wrote that his premiums had increased 75% over two years when being forced into Covered CA; Covered CA of course touted that the fact their premiums only increased 4.2% (which isn’t necessarily something to be touting).
    A contributing factor of the higher premiums was because they covered services that Street and his wife didn’t want or need.
    “Such ‘medically necessary benefit’ includes gender reassignment, needle exchanges for heroin addicts, smoking cessation treatments, SSRIs (such as Prozac) for ‘normal’ people who want to feel ‘better than normal’, birth control, fertility, surrogate mother fees, sperm bank fees, stomach stapling for weight-loss, liposuction, weight loss foods and supplements, and eye-rounding,” Street writes.
    When covering those kinds of services, doesn’t it make sense that Covered CA would be expensive and that people would rather than take the individual mandate penalty instead of enrolling?
    But there’s more- Street describes horror stories of trying to login to the Covered CA website to renew his insurance policy only to fail and have to call a help line, to no avail.
    “In frustration, I called the (800) 300-1506 help line and the automated attendant stated all representatives were busy and ‘your call wait time is ten minutes,’” Street writes. “Six minutes later a representative came on the line. Her first question was, ‘Are you a registered voter.’”
    Keep that in mind- these bureaucrats care more about registering enrollees into the Democrat party than actually taking care of their health.
    Street’s frustration with Covered CA is not an anomaly. Sheryl Attkisson over at The Daily Signal has a two-part expose on the incompetence, corruption and mismanagement inside Covered CA- which remember will cost at least $1.2 billion more than the state budgeted for- and it is certainly worth reading both in full. But there are sections worth highlighting.
    Attkisson chronicles the stories of Aiden Hill, who at one point was the project manager of Covered CA’s call center. Hill said that from the get-go, it was clear that Covered CA was going to fail. The website was failing even before it launched, and when it did launch, the website and call center shut down in the first hour.
    Consequently, customers had to fill out 33 pages of paperwork that didn’t match the electronic version. But Covered CA counted duplicate applicants as more enrollees, and gave false enrollment numbers to make it seem like they had a high number of people signing up.
    Hill also was concerned at conflicts of interest with certain contractors, as well as other mismanagement and tried to flag it, resulting in Covered CA firing him.
    Given this information, the latest news of Covered CA on track of going bankrupt should not be surprising. In fact, Governor Brown is proposing merging the failing Covered CA exchanged with the failed Cover Oregon exchange- expecting two wrongs to make a right.
    Covered CA represents everything that is wrong with Obamacare, and with big government- the bureaucracy cannot be trusted to micromanage our lives, and is in the end unsustainable. Unfortunately, we the taxpayers will have to pay for it.
    This was originally posted at the East Bay Young Republicans website.

    Thank You Mr Bandler and Townhall.