Schumer Shutdown And Obamacare Subsidy Lies

Senator Chuck Schumer's government shutdown threatens to become the longest in American history, breaking the record 36-day stalemate in President Trump's first administration.  The NewYork lawmaker fears his party's leftist base will torpedo his reelection chances unless he remains recalcitrant. 

Schumer has frogmarched his Democratic Party minions into the Death Zone of politics.  Republicans are refusing to take his bait of extending Obamacare subsidies in exchange for unlocking the doors of government. Now Schumer faces the real threat of a pyrrhic victory, caving without a political victory.  

Pressure is ratcheting as airline executives, air traffic control union bosses, federal government worker union officials, small business associations and other groups are calling on Democrats to vote with Republicans to approve a continuing appropriation that Schumer voted for in March.

For those who insist both parties are at fault, this is the Big Lie. Republicans have voted more than 13 times for the so-called continuing resolution to fund the government at fiscal 2024 Biden-era levels.  A few Democrats have broken ranks, but Schumer has corralled the votes to enforce gridlock.  

Under Schumer's iron fist, Democrats have publicly made the shutdown about extending COVID-era Obamacare subsidies.  This may be the most bone-headed issue to pick for a shutdown showdown.  The media reporting reads like dispatches from Russian-controlled Pravda. 

The shutdown is not about all Obamacare premium subsidies.  It involves only the enhanced subsidies Democrats passed as part of American Rescue Plan (2021) and the Inflation Reduction Act (2022). Democrats voted to sunset the subsidies at the end of 2025. It was not a GOP idea.

These so-called enhanced subsidies, allegedly to help Americans during COVID, were nothing more than a scheme to put more individuals on Obamacare.  Under the plan, some Americans were able to get plans with no premiums or very low premiums.  These were pedaled as temporary measures. 

Democrats figured once millions of Americans were hooked up to the government teat they would cry foul if they were weaned from taxpayer subsidies.  This was a deliberate attempt to bloat the rolls with individuals willing to vote with Democrats to permanently latch on to the extraneous benefits.

To no one's surprise, the subsidies invited massive fraud.  Estimates by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) put the numbers of improperly enrolled individuals at between 2.3 million and 6.4 million. An independent estimate fixed the number at 5 million, costing taxpayers an extra $20 billion.  

The government uncovered insurance fraud as agents and brokers enrolled individuals without  their consent in order to collect commissions. An independent study by Paragon Health Institute found 11.7 million enrollees--more than one-third of the entire Obamacare marketplace--made no claims.

Where did the billions of dollars in subsidies go?  Into the pockets of unscrupulous insurance brokers and to insurance companies.  

That wasn't the only political hustle.  Obamacare subsidies were extended to households making 400 percent of the federal poverty cap. That allowed some Americans with incomes of $600,000 to qualify for government benefits.  About one-third of the enhanced subsidies went to these wealthy individuals.

How come the media has not highlighted these benefits for the often maligned bogeyman: the fat cats?  

This is what Democrats want their left wing base to believe is worth fighting for.  More fraud and taxpayer waste to keep the government in limbo.  There is no longer a COVID emergency and therefore there is no justification for making these costly subsidies permanent entitlements.  

Permanently extending the enhanced Obamacare subsidies would cost $488 billion, increasing the deficit by $350 billion over ten years, while adding another $60 billion in additional interest cost to finance the spending.

Even without the extended subsidies, the CBO projects the cost of Obamacare--the ill-named Affordable Care Act--to top $1.32 trillion during the ten-year period from 2025 through 2034.  

The approximately 24 million Americans currently enrolled in Obamacare health insurance plans face higher premiums next year, Democrats complain.  They quote the progressive  Kaiser Family Foundation forecasts that premiums through health exchanges will leap 26% on average next year, reflecting the rising cost of care. 

However, the foundation estimates are based on those who enroll in the Silver or second tier plan--not the lowest.  KFF also uses current enhanced subsidies in its calculation, which is skewed because it includes those Americans whose incomes are above the 400% of the poverty line.

A more accurate estimate is a study by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). It found the average Obamacare marketplace premium after tax credits is projected to cost $50 per month for the lowest cost plan next year.  Nearly 60% of enrollees will have access to those plans $50 and below.

Those estimates are based on the expiration of the enhanced subsidies. This destroys the Democrats' talking point that failure to extend the supercharged subsidies will significantly increase premiums for the poorest Americans.  

In fact, the cost for Obamacare coverage is significantly less than what most Americans pay for insurance through their employer.  And they don't get the advantage of taxpayer handouts. Taxpayers are forecast to cover 91% of the lowest cost plan premiums for Obamacare, CMS reports.    

Obamacare has left a shameful trail of broken promises.  You could keep your doctor.  If you liked your coverage, you could keep it.  Premiums would go down $2,500 on average. Reality was far different than what President Obama and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi sold to the American people. 

Millions found out their Obamacare plans did not include their doctor. In the first year alone, 9.3 million Americans lost coverage when their businesses stopped insuring them. Premiums ballooned 60% in just the first four years of Obamacare.

It is a failed experiment in government run health insurance. But like all government entitlements, politicians keep throwing your money at bad ideas. At least, Democrats and Republicans should agree that the COVID-era enhanced benefits can be accorded a Congressional burial.   

UK's Lousy Healthcare May Be Exported to America

Plans for overhauling America's healthcare are making the rounds in Washington.  Both political parties are sending signals about a new direction.  In this political season, the dialogue appears to be headed toward a government-run plan or at the very least intrusive federal oversight of healthcare.

Those trumpeting Medicare for All are pointing to models in other countries as a cure all for what ails America's healthcare system.  Proponents want a national system that covers every individual in the country.  Absolutely free.  Run by bureaucrats in Washington rather than by doctors and patients.

By dangling the word "free" in the face of Americans, champions of the system are counting on voters signing on without any facts about the consequences for preserving quality healthcare. The clever ruse might work unless Americans are educated about the chilling experience of others.

If voters want a preview of nationalized healthcare, they need look no further than the United Kingdom. Our neighbors across the pond receive free or heavily subsidized healthcare. That care is provided by the government-run, centralized National Health Service (NHS.)

The NHS, funded by taxpayers, rules every aspect of health care.  It dictates conditions of work, employment, hours, pay, drugs and authorizes treatments.  The NHS bureaucracy even prescribes doctors' training. As a result, doctors are treated more like production workers than professionals.

Ironically, American proponents often cite Britain as an example of how free government provided healthcare benefits the public. These supporters are hoping no one bothers to examine the quality of care in the U.K.  In a word, it is lousy.  Numerous studies have documented that fact.

A Patients Association report issued in the U.K. found that from 2002 to 2008 about one million patients suffered "neglectful, demeaning, painful and sometimes downright cruel" treatment.  The appalling level of care was responsible for up to 1,200 patients dying in a single year.

Democrat presidential candidate Bernie Sanders often bellows that Americans will die unless health care is overseen by the government. He cites the NHS as a model, among others, to be imitated. News Flash Mr. Sanders.  People actually die from health care in the U.K.

In 2012, the British Medical Journal published the results of two studies conducted by the New York-based Commonwealth Fund,  In a review of healthcare systems in 14 advanced countries, the NHS was rated the worst on several major categories.

The British system was ranked dead last for five-year survival rates on cervical, breast and colon cancers. It was the worst for 30-day mortality rates after admission to a hospital for either hemorrhagic or ischemic stroke.  On the bright side, patients did not have to pay for miserable care.

Another report in 2013 cited long waits for non-emergency visits to family doctors, known as general practitioners. Many GPs are booked months in advance.  Patients can see the doctors promptly if that call and report a medical emergency.  But GPs are limited to the number of emergency appointments.

There is a backlog of patients waiting for surgeries, which can be postponed for lack of a piece of medical equipment.  Elective surgery is rare, but in those cases patients must wait years to be seen by a specialist.  Americans spoiled by surgery-on-demand would be horrified by this standard of care.

Like the ill-fated Obamacare plan, the promise of the NHS was to eliminate emergency room visits through national healthcare coverage. However, hospital emergency room visits are growing in Britain because most general practitioners do not work after hours under the NHS employment rules.

Healthcare has not improved since the 2013 review.  The latest summary covering July to September of 2018 found emergency visits still rising by 1,000 per day.  Waiting times have increased and more than 100,000 vacancies exist for doctors and nurses. This scenario leads to more healthcare rationing.

In Britain the result is a two-tier system.  Those who can afford paying for care out of their own pockets visit private physicians, receive care in private hospitals and buy private health insurance. Their level of healthcare is far superior to that of the average Brit.  Is that what Americans want?

British private care is more costly than even the United States.  An appointment with a general practitioner costs $105 for 15 minutes.  An hour consultation runs $350.  Those in America backing national health schemes know full well the same two-tier system will be the result of their scheme.

On a personal note, your journalist has first-hand knowledge of the U.K. system, having resided in London.  But mine predates that of my niece who resided in London where she birthed two children in the British healthcare system. Her cringe-worthy details should frighten any female.

She never saw an OBGYN.  She was allowed only two sonograms.  She never saw a doctor because she was not considered high risk.  Her baby was delivered by a mid-wife.  She had to insist on admission to a hospital to get an epidural because the normal birthing centers do not offer the drug.

Traveling and living outside the U.S. have opened my eyes to how fortunate Americans are to have the most modern and technologically superior healthcare system.  Too bad more Americans have not lived abroad.  While our system has flaws, it remains the world's best.

The worry is that voters will react only to the the seduction of "free" when they consider politicians' proposals.  Cost is a legitimate concern, but improving healthcare quality should be the priority of any changes. Let's hope voters do their own due diligence rather than relying on Utopian promises.

Obamacare: An Unhealthy Diagnosis

Obamacare, the president's signature health initiative, still has a pulse but its vital signs are unstable. The patient suffers from hemorrhaging costs, feverish premium increases and chilling enrollment numbers. Despite the critical condition, the media and the president claim the scheme is healthy.

Every enrollment period, President Obama and his media sycophants cheer the rising numbers. They flog data showing the percentage of the population with no insurance is declining.  They boast about the plethora of choices consumers have for insurance.

Long ago buried are the promises the president made before Obamacare was signed into law in 2010. Remember, he guaranteed consumers could keep their doctor.  A steely-eyed Mr. Obama assured Americans they would experience a $2,500 drop in their insurance premiums.

And, not least of all, the president pounded his bully pulpit and wagged his finger, committing to a price tag of less than $1 trillion for a decade of improved care that would forever change America, leaving no one without health insurance.

As usual, the facts on the ground have a way of unraveling the narrative ginned up by Mr. Obama and his willing accomplices in the media. Things are so bad that even Democrats are not running around bragging about how good Obamacare has been for Americans.

Here is a report on the annual physical for Obamacare:

The number of enrollees has failed to meet projections.  At the beginning of 2015, there were 11.7 million Americans enrolled in Obamacare. After the enrollment period was completed, the number of insured started shrinking. Nearly two million people stopped paying premiums or lost their coverage. By June of last year, only 9.9 million people had insurance under the government plan, according to figures on the Obamacare website. When the enrollment period ended for 2016, there were 11.3 million people signed up, reported Health and Human Services (HHS).  Each month more people drop out.  You never see news coverage of that figure.  In addition, Obamacare enrollment has never met the goals.  The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) predicted there would be 24 million enrollees by 2016, which means the government failed to even reach half that number.

The cost of insurance is rising. Premiums for the three levels of insurance coverage under Obamacare have increased every year. The nationwide average hike last year was 2 percent, a misleading figure.  In many cities, the costs spiked by double-digits.  In Portland, rates for the silver plan (the mid-range coverage) skyrocketed 16.2 percent.  In Albuquerque, the price tag leaped 11 percent.  In Virginia, costs zoomed up 10.8 percent.  Things are not looking any better for the future. Rates are projected to soar 17 percent in 2017 in California, according to the Los Angeles Times.  The CBO figured the costs of Obamacare insurance premiums will climb six percent every year over the next decade.

The numbers of uninsured remain high.  The Obama Administration likes to champion the idea that the number of uninsured are only 9.1 percent of the population under the age of 65.  However, there are a number of independent sources with contradictory data. For example, Gallup polling organization found 11.9 percent of the population under 65 had no insurance. In 2008, the percentage of uninsured was 14.6 percent of the population.  That means the number of uninsured has dropped by 3.5 percentage points in five years.  Tax returns for the year 2014 show that 7.5 million Americans paid fines to the Internal Revenue Service rather than purchase insurance.

Consumers' health insurance choices are dwindling.  Three of the largest insurance companies--Aetna, Humana and United Healthcare--have announced plans to exit the business in 2017. A number of insurance cooperatives have also pulled the plug on Obamacare plans. Avalere, a health care consulting firm, projects that more than one-third of the exchange market regions in the country will be stuck with just one health carrier next year.  About 55 percent of the regions will have two. Unsustainable financial losses are driving health insurance providers to dump Obamacare. Industry experts maintain the dreary finances are a toxic mix of lower than expected enrollment and higher than anticipated claims.

Obamacare's costs have far exceeded estimates.  The CBO's latest figure pegs the cost of Obamacare over the next decade at $1.34 trillion.  This is an increase of $136 billion over the budget agency's predictions issued in 2015.  In 2016, the total cost of Obamacare is estimated at $110 billion. One reason for the escalating costs is that 87 percent of those enrolled in one of the three Obamacare plans received some form of financial assistance from the federal government to help pay for coverage.  As the cost of coverage climbs, so does the subsidy needed to help people buy insurance. Last year the government paid $38 billion in subsidies, a $23 billion increase from 2014.

By any measurement, Obamacare is sick.  Americans were sold a bill of goods by Democrats, the president and the apparatchik media. Obamacare deserves an early death.  However, don't expect it to succumb, despite all its ills.

President Ronald Reagan once famously said that a government program "is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth."  As usual, Mr. Reagan was right.  Obamacare will have a lasting existence, no matter what you read and hear from do-nothing Republicans.

Obamacare: America's Unhealthy Insurance Scheme

After the president declared Obamacare a roaring success, the nation's media turned a blind eye to reports chronicling the unraveling of the largest government boondoggle in history.  Mr. Obama's signature health reform plan is wallowing in billions of fraud, mismanagement and insolvency.

The bloated federal bureaucracy paid for by taxpayers to oversee the implementation of Obamacare is an administrative muck up.  Nearly every aspect of the health plan designed to cover the uninsured has been an utter failure.  Moreover, costs have exceeded even the rosiest predictions.  

When the health plan was signed into law in 2010, reports showed 14.4 percent of all adults were uninsured. Today nearly 13 percent (12.9%)of adults have no insurance despite billions in government spending. More than 32 million Americans remain uninsured.       

The president has claimed 17.6 million Americans have signed up for health care coverage under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.  About five million of those Americans previously had no insurance. That means the overwhelming majority were forced to give up their previous policy.   

Even the 17.6 million number is dubious.  Survey data from the global consulting firm McKinsey shows that 16 percent of those who enroll never obtain insurance.  That means the number of Americans covered under Obamacare is closer to 13.7 million, far short of its original goal. 

For those meager results, taxpayers will pay almost double the administration's under inflated cost estimate.  The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has projected costs over the next decade will top $1.993 trillion. The president promised costs would not exceed $900 billion over 10 years.  

To make matters worse, there have been a slew of investigations by government watchdog groups excoriating the government apparatus for its handling of the implementation and operation of the insurance program.  

In one of the most recent reports, the Department of Health and Human Services Inspector General documented the dismal performance of tax-funded insurance cooperatives that were created in 2011 at a cost of $2 billion.  The co-ops were supposed to compete with private health insurance firms.

The inspector's findings were a searing indictment of the government scheme.  Seven co-ops have shuttered their doors.  Of the remaining 23 co-ops, 22 are in deep financial trouble.  As a result, more co-ops will soon be forced to close because of insolvency.

Another audit by the same inspector general forced a stunning admission from the Health and Human Services Department, the agency entrusted with overseeing Obamacare.  The department could not verify the accuracy of more than $2.8 billion it paid out in subsidies to newly insured Americans.

The IG investigation found HHS "did not have systems in place to ensure that financial assistance payments were made on behalf of confirmed enrollees in the correct amounts."  Translation:  the agency had no idea if those receiving subsidies met the income, citizenship or tax requirements.

The Obamacare state exchanges have fared only slightly better than the co-ops.  Many of the exchanges have floundered, suffering systemic failures, cost-overruns and slipshod controls.  More than $5.5 billion has been doled out to the problem-plagued exchanges. 

The independent Government Accountability Office (GAO) recently conducted a field test to determine the viability of enrollment controls in federal and state exchanges.  In its covert operation, GAO delegates applied for coverage through the exchanges.

The GAO applicants used fictitious Social Security numbers, fraudulent household income data and fake citizenship information.  Ten of its 11 undercover operatives were able to receive Obamacare subsidies and tax credits from the exchanges using the bogus data.  

It should came as no surprise that in August of this year the HHS Inspector General found that the website Healthcare.gov was failing to verify applicants' Social Security numbers, citizenship and household income.  

The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration conducted its own investigation this year and revealed that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) was failing to verify whether individuals had purchased mandated health coverage before distributing tax credits.  

Even for this government, the level of dereliction, bureaucratic bungling and incompetency is epic. Yet the president and his media sycophants continue to unabashedly propagandize the success of the health care law, ignoring the flawed implementation of the complex reform.  

For all these issues, Obamacare has victimized the very people it was supposed to help.  Millions of Americans have had their insurance plans cancelled, lost access to their doctors, been socked with skyrocketing premiums and been forced to accept higher insurance deductibles.

This year alone rates for insurance sold through the government website are expected to increase an average of 7.5 percent for coverage in 2016. Consumers in some states will pay even higher rates. For example, insurance prices in Idaho are expected to spike 30 percent.  

The president has left a fetid trail of broken promises on his way to proclaiming Obamacare an unqualified success.  Now that the truth has been exposed, it is clear the reform has been a disaster. However, Americans are stuck with the tax bill and saddled with shoddy health coverage.

The next president must halt the charade and end resuscitation of the terminally ill health plan.   

Citizen Journalist: How One Man Exposed Obamacare

By all accounts, Rich Weinstein is the most unlikely person in America to ignite a firestorm that threatens to topple Obamacare.  The unassuming Pennsylvanian is an investment adviser.  He is not a reporter, yet he exposed the underhanded tactics used to bamboozle the public on health reform.  

In a San Antonio radio interview, Weinstein recounted how his journalistic journey began when his health insurance was cancelled and he was forced to enroll in Obamacare.  He decided to research the law.  The more he learned about his new health care coverage, the more dismayed he became.

His legwork on the internet revealed provisions buried in the law's 2,000-plus pages that had escaped media attention.  Then he uncovered a bombshell: a video of one of Obamacare's architects disclosing that the bill's obfuscation was deliberate and that passage of the law required opacity.

"Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage," bragged Jonathan Gruber, an MIT economist.  "And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical to getting the thing to pass."

The bombastic tirade was a gift that Weinstein decided to share with the news media last year.  Not one media outlet, including The Washington Post, thought it was newsworthy.  It wasn't until the video was posted online that the media could no longer ignore the powerful unmasking of political chicanery.

Gruber, after being taken to the woodshed by Democrats, quickly apologized on President Obama's personal television network MSNBC, explaining that he had been "speaking off the cuff."  But then four more damning videos surfaced and Gruber crawled into academic hiding.

But this is not just a story about a crusade by a citizen journalist. Weinstein's lone effort to shine a light on the president's signature health care reform is an indictment of the nation's media for their failure to do their own investigation of the behind-the-scenes political shenanigans.

Those paragons of journalistic principle, The New York Times, The Washington Post and ABC, NBC and CBS news, allowed their own fawning support of President Obama to cloud their news judgement. They joined hands to ensure their reporting would burnish the image of the health care law.

Now they all look foolish.  As do Democrats, who are now scrambling to cover up the deliberate con they hatched to pass the president's health law.  In one toxic interview, former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi huffed that she had not heard of Gruber and that he had nothing to do with the law.

But some enterprising reporters found videos of Ms. Pelosi suggesting that Gruber was THE expert on health care statistics.  Other journalists discovered the California representative had also featured Gruber's role in shaping Obamacare on her own website in 2009.  So much for transparency.

Embarrassed by Weinstein's journalism, the news media has adopted a policy of pooh-poohing Gruber's remarks as idle chatter about routine political back room maneuvering.  The Washington Post set the tone with a blog report that Gruber's offhanded comments were much ado about nothing.

"…Gruber's comments, while damning, aren't exactly the most fertile political territory," an arrogant Post columnist opined.  "That's because, while "stupidity of the American voter" is a pretty strong soundbite, Gruber's connection to the law takes some explaining."

In other words, The Washington Post also believes most people are too stupid to ferret out the linkage between Gruber and Obamacare, although there is public evidence that Gruber served as a technical consultant to the Obama Administration and helped craft the new health care law.

Gruber's skulduggery was handsomely rewarded by the federal government.  In 2009, he pocketed nearly $400,000 through contracts with the Department of Health and Human Services.  Yet Pelosi and presidential spokesman Josh Earnest continue to insist Gruber played no role in Obamacare.

Public logs, readily available to journalists, document that Gruber was a regular visitor to the White House and Congress.  Records show Gruber made 19 visits to the White House and Capitol Hill from 2009 to June of this year.

Despite this evidence, President Obama has distanced himself from Gruber, calling him "some adviser, who never worked on our staff." He may not have been a staff member, but Gruber was paid by the very government that the president serves as chief executive.

The only stupid Americans in this saga are The Washington Post, Democrats, Jonathan Gruber and Nancy Pelosi.  Most average people now understand they were duped by the president and his Democrat allies in order to saddle Americans with inferior government-dictated health care.

It took an ordinary citizen named Rich Weinstein to divulge the sleazy deception.  He is the only hero in this political tragedy.  The elitist Washington Post probably considers him stupid, too.      

Obama: The Bystander-in-Chief

In what has become a familiar tactic for this administration, President Obama tried to duck responsibility for the botched roll out of his health care reform by claiming he had no clue the critical government website was hopelessly flawed.

Yet insurance industry experts had been publicly warning for months the web portal was burdened with glitches.  The digital platform had failed hundreds of internal tests, still Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius green-lighted the aborted launch.

The government, Obama's government, belly flopped in its effort to deliver the insurance enrollment system it promised.  Instead of accepting responsibility, Obama and his mouthpiece Jay Carney assured the nation the president was uninvolved, despite warning signs he should have exercised due diligence.

This president has adopted this same head-in-the-sand defense before.

Name a scandal and the president has pleaded ignorance. Benghazi. Mexican gun-running.  NSA snooping on U.S. citizens.  Tapping reporters phones. IRS blacklisting of conservative political groups. Government spying on leaders of nations. In each case, Obama feigned enlightenment.

Apparently, the president wants Americans to believe he is a mere bystander, not the chief executive of the nation.  The sign on the desk in the Oval Office must read:  "I disavow all knowledge that a buck ever visited here, much less stopped."

He certainly had every motivation to learn first-hand about the roll out of the website.  His name has become synonymous with the law. It is the top achievement cited by his administration and the Democrat Party nearly five years into his presidency.

How could he have been so blind to what so many insiders knew?  

The answer is the president deliberately put distance between himself and the flawed website because of the political connections to the contractor responsible for the debacle.  Obama feared a major scandal, if the nature of the relationship with the website's architect was exposed.

In the days after the fiasco, news stories began to surface that a senior executive at the website contractor CGI Federal had ties to First Lady Michelle Obama.  The executive and former classmate, Toni Townes-Whitely, appears to have exploited her cozy relationship.

Townes-Whitely joined the Canadian-based CGI in May of 2010, less than two months after the president penned his signature on the health care law.  Soon after her arrival, the firm received a no bid contract for $678 million for work on the website and related services.

The selection of the company appears curious in light of recent revelations that CGI fumbled a health care system project for the providence of Ontario in Canada.  After missed deadlines and other setbacks, the Ontario government pulled the plug on the $46.2 million project.

Despite the bungled venture, the administration handed the contract to CGI to build a transaction-based website, like hundreds that already exist on the internet.  This did not involve new technology or sophisticated software. It should have been a routine project for a competent tech firm.

In the months leading up to the catastrophic launch, White House visitor logs show Townes-Whitely had a least four meetings with senior administration officials from April to June.  Did she forewarn the White House about the impending disaster?  The administration and Townes-Whitely remain mum.

In the harsh spotlight of public scrutiny, it is more than a little suspicious that one of the largest government contracts for such a high-profile project was awarded to a non-U.S. based business without a competitive bid, despite its less than sterling performance in the health care arena.

As usual, the administration that once promised to be the "most transparent in history" has stiff-armed requests by House committees anxious to look deeper into the the matter.  Secretary Sebelius' testimony before Congress about the website collapse stands as a tutorial in obfuscation.

Americans shouldn't expect Sebelius' boss President Obama to shed any light either on this latest scandal.  He has already admitted he is just an innocent bystander.