California Supreme Court Upholds ‘Impossible’ Gun Control Law

1 Comment

H/T Breitbart California.

Hopefully this law can be overturned.

The Supreme Court of California upheld a micro-stamping requirement for semiautomatic handguns Thursday — even though the technology does not exist to allow manufacturers to comply.

The Associated Press summed up the court’s ruling: “The California Supreme Court says state laws cannot be invalidated on the grounds that complying with them is impossible.”

Juliet Williams


SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — In ruling on bullet-stamping law, California Supreme Court says state laws cannot be invalidated on the grounds that complying with them is impossible.

The micro-stamping requirement, or “bullet stamping law,” as it is sometimes called, requires that semiautomatic handguns sold in California have a special, one-of-kind marker affixed to their firing pins so a special fingerprint is left on each spent shell casing. The idea is to give law enforcement a means to take shell casings from a crime scene and trace them back to the firearm’s owner.

Many problems exist with this proposed scenario. First, the technology does not exist. No manufacturer who is importing guns into California makes a firearm that puts a special mark on spent shell casings.

Second, if the technology did exist, it would easy to defeat by simply scratching the mark off the firing pin or replacing the factory firing pin.

Third, an even easier way to defeat it would be to use a revolver instead instead of a semi-automatic. (Revolvers do not leave behind spent shell casings).

On April 5, 2018, the Los Angeles Times’ Daily Pilot addressed the micro-stamping requirement, noting that “the technology is wholly unreliable and prohibitively expensive.” The Pilot noted, “Each time a gun is fired, it wears slightly, leaving a micro-stamp unreadable after a short period of normal use.”

In sum, micro-stamping technology is theoretical at best, yet California’s highest court did not see this as grounds for dismissing the law.


Nancy Pelosi: Maxine Waters Comments ‘Unacceptable’ — and Trump’s Fault

1 Comment

H/T Breitbart California.

Nancy Pelosi and Maxine Waters are despicable piles of excrement and it is not President Trump’s fault.  

Former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) criticized comments by Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) over the weekend calling on the public to “harass” members of the Trump administration — but said the President was to blame for Waters’s rhetoric.

Pelosi, who serves as House Minority Leader, and would be Speaker again if Democrats win the midterm elections, weeted Monday morning:

Nancy Pelosi


In the crucial months ahead, we must strive to make America beautiful again. Trump’s daily lack of civility has provoked responses that are predictable but unacceptable. As we go forward, we must conduct elections in a way that achieves unity from sea to shining sea.

CNN Politics


Democratic Rep. Maxine Waters encourages her supporters to harass Trump administration officials 

View image on Twitter

It was unclear which of Trump’s remarks Pelosi was referring to as a possible provocation.

Pelosi is struggling to contain the damage after Waters’s incendiary remarks threatened to motivate Republicans to turn out in November — of only out of a sense of self-preservation. (Cartoonist and pundit Scott Adams observed Sunday that the best slogan for the GOP in 2018 might turn out to be, “They’re Coming for You Next.”)

Waters’s statements to MSNBC included the following:

I have no sympathy for these people that are in this administration who know it’s wrong for what they’re doing on so many fronts. They tend to not want to confront this president or even leave, but they know what they’re doing is wrong. I want to tell you, these members of his cabinet who remain and try to defend him, they won’t be able to go to a restaurant, they won’t be able to stop at a gas station, they’re not going to be able to shop at a department store. The people are going to turn on them. They’re going to protest. They’re absolutely going to harass them until they decide that they’re going to tell the president, “No, I can’t hang with you.” This is wrong. This is unconscionable. We can’t keep doing this to children.

We’ve got to push back. We’ve got to say no. I, for example, have stepped way out there. I said this man needs to be impeached. I know a lot of people think we’re not ready to say that. Some people have said a long time ago he would become presidential. He will never be presidential. This man does not have any good values. I believe he needs to be impeached. As a matter of fact, a long time before he’s doing what he’s doing now with these children. I think he had done enough to undermine this country and to have us understand we cannot trust him, that we should have come with an impeachment resolution. So, I believe we cannot wait until the next presidential election. We have to resist him. I want to see him impeached.

Pelosi has downplayed calls from her party for the president to be impeached.

President Trump on Marijuana: ‘I Probably Will End Up Supporting’ End to Federal Ban

Leave a comment

H/T Breitbart California.

Marijuana should be legal and taxed like tobacco.

President Donald Trump told a gaggle of reporters Friday that he will “probably” support efforts by Sen. Cory Gardner (R-CO) to end the federal ban on marijuana in states that have legalized it.

“I support Sen. Gardner,” the president said before departing for the G-7 summit in Canada, as quoted by the Los Angeles Times. “I know exactly what he’s doing. We’re looking at it. But I probably will end up supporting that, yes.”

President Trump has taken a hard line against drugs. In March, he proposed that the death penalty be made available in prosecutions of drug traffickers.

Earlier this year, Attorney General Jeff Sessions reversed an Obama-era policy of not enforcing the federal marijuana ban in states that had voted to legalize the drug for medicinal or recreational use, allowing federal prosecutors in each state to use their own discretion.

In response to that decision, Garnder threatened to hold up future nominations for positions in the Department of Justice. He backed down after he said Trump had agreednot to intervene in states that had legalized the drug, and said privately that he would support Garnder’s legislation.

Friday’s statement, however, was the first time Trump had made that support public.

The president’s comments on marijuana were among many other surprises Friday morning. He also hinted that he might offer a posthumous pardon to boxer Muhammad Ali for refusing to serve in Vietnam. And he suggested — just days after disinviting the Philadelphia Eagles from the White House over the issue of kneeling for the national anthem — that he would speak to players who knelt about their suggestions for future presidential pardons.

Earlier this week, Trump commuted the sentence of Alice Marie Johnson, who had been serving a life sentence for a non-violent drug-related crime.

Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News. He was na

Arnold Schwarzenegger Won’t Vote for a Republican in June Primary

1 Comment

H/T Breitbart California.

Nobody really cares who this RINO will or will not vote for in the June Primary.

A spokesman for former California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger announced that the “Terminator” will not be voting for a Republican in the June 5 primary.

Schwarzenegger’s spokesman Daniel Ketchell told the Los Angeles Times on Friday that the Hollywood action star made his decision based on comments that Republican governor candidates John Cox and Travis Allen have made regarding their disbelief in climate change, and their promise to overturn Assembly Bill 32, which Schwarzenegger and the Democratic legislature passed in 2006, inaugurating California’s “cap-and-trade” program.

Ketchell told the Times that Schwarzenegger was adamant: “He won’t support any candidate that plans to take California backward and undo our environmental leadership.”

Schwarzenegger has claimed on CNN that Republicans now only have about 26 percent registration percentage in California because they are “dying at the box office” by failing to have inclusive policies to address health, education, and environmental issues.

But Schwarzenegger somehow has forgotten that when he was first elected governor in 2003, the Rose Institute reported 35.21 percent of California voters registered as Republicans. Although that was down 1.2 percent from 1996, the Democrats’ registration percentage had plunged over the same period by 2.6 points to 44.6 percent.

When “Govenator” Schwarzenegger left office in January 2011, his popularity was already in a free fall when a scandal exploded in the media regarding the out-of-wedlock son he had with the family’s long-time housekeeper.

The Field Research poll during that period found that Schwarzenegger was seen negatively by 75 percent of California voters, and his approval rating was only 20 percent. To put that in perspective, President Richard Nixon — who left office on the verge of impeachment, and continues to be the most unpopular president in history — had a 25 percent approval rating when he resigned in disgrace.

Breitbart News reported in January that Schwarzenegger had joined Ohio Gov. John Kasich and fired Republican Assembly leader Chad Mayes to launch a new effort called “New Way California.”

Assemblyman Chad Mayes was dumped in August as a GOP leader after he provided the crucial Republican swing vote that renewed Democrat Gov. Jerry Brown’s cap-and-trade program.

Report: CA Dems Pushing to Give Illegal Adults Full Healthcare Benefits

Leave a comment

H/T Breitbart California.

People and businesses are leaving California because of high taxes now and that number will increase if taxes go up any more in California.

California Democrats are reportedly pushing to give full healthcare benefits to illegal immigrant adults, which would mean that the Golden State not only may have to raise taxes but will also be a magnet for even more illegal immigrants.

According to a Monday Politico report, state Senator Ricardo Lara (D-Bell Gardens) is leading the charge by reportedly arguing that “California needs to be a laboratory for social change by taking the lead on progressive causes.”

“We are trying to address the fact that, whether you like it or not, our undocumented community needs the care, and we are paying for it anyway,” he reportedly said.

Politico points out that California Democrats are trying to extend the state’s Medi-Cal program this legislative session to nearly 1.2 million illegal immigrant adults who would qualify for it, and “companion bills in the state Assembly and Senate” have already “passed their respective health committees with party-line votes.”

The cost to expand Medicaid coverage to adult illegal immigrants in California is reportedly projected to cost $3 billion annually.

California Governor Jerry Brown, who extended Medi-Cal coverage to illegal immigrant children in 2015, has not commented on the pending measures but “is required by law to sign or veto bills passed this session by Sept. 30, just five weeks before the midterm elections.”

Political and health analysts are reportedly astounded that Democrats are trying to extend healthcare benefits to illegal immigrants before this year’s important midterm elections, reportedly saying that the measure would give Republicans in California relevance “they would never have before” in an election cycle in which House races in California could decide which party controls Congress.

Paul Ginsburg, director of the USC-Brookings Schaeffer Initiative for Health Policy, told Politico that the proposal would be “fiscally very dangerous” and  Jay Bhattacharya, a Stanford physician and health economist, suggested to the outlet that such a plan would have to be paid for with tax increases.

Bhattacharya also pointed out the obvious—giving full healthcare coverage to illegal immigrant adults will make California, which is already an official “sanctuary” state, even a greater magnet for illegal immigrants.

The illegal immigrant who murdered Kate Steinle, for instance, told authorities that he came to San Francisco after being previously deported five times because he knew San Francisco was proudly a “sanctuary city.”

“If you make a program like this available, undocumented workers in other states might be attracted to California because of this,” Bhattacharya, the Stanford physician, reportedly said.

Carlsbad Joins Revolt Against California’s ‘Sanctuary State’ Laws

1 Comment

H/T Breitbart California.

It seems there are some sane people in California after all.

The coastal city of Carlsbad joined over a dozen other local governments Monday in formally opposing California’s “sanctuary state” laws, and supporting the federal government’s lawsuit to overturn them.

The Los Angeles Times reports:

Carlsbad’s City Council waded into the national “sanctuary state” issue Monday evening, voting 4-1 to back the federal government’s lawsuit against California.

They also agreed the city should file a legal brief “when appropriate” in support of the federal action against the state’s Senate Bill 54, which prohibits local law enforcement officials from investigating arrestees’ immigration status or reporting that status to federal authorities.

A handful of other local jurisdictions have taken a position on the state law, which limits what state and local law enforcement officials from investigating arrestees’ immigration status or reporting it to federal authorities. Federal officials have said the law pre-empts their authority.

So far three [San Diego County] cities — National City, Chula Vista and San Diego — have stepped up to support the state law, while two jurisdictions — Escondido and San Diego County — have voted to oppose it.

The U.S. Department of Justice filed its lawsuit in early March. The lawsuit seeks to overturn the Immigrant Worker Protection Act (HB 450), the Inspection and Review of Facilities Housing Federal Detainees law (AB 103); and the California Values Act (SB 54). The Trump administration argues that these laws violate the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause.

In the weeks that followed, local activists, inspired by the Trump administration’s intervention, urged cities and counties to defy the sanctuary state laws and support the federal lawsuit.

#NBC7 San Diego


Carlsbad has just become the latest city to revolt against California’s so-called “sanctuary state” laws. 

Carlsbad City Council Votes to Support Anti-Sanctuary Suit

Carlsbad has just become the latest city to revolt against California’s so-called ‘sanctuary state’ laws.


The first to do so was the small city of Los Alamitos, in Orange County. More than a dozen other jurisdictions have followed suit, including Orange County, San Diego County, and Tuolumne County.

Experts suggest that the state will struggle to defend at least two out of the three laws, with only SB 54 having a chance of surviving judicial muster.

Teen Vogue: More States Should Embrace California’s Strict Gun Control Laws

1 Comment

H/T Breitbart California.

Lincoln Anthony Blades needs to stick with writing about pop culture as he does not have a clue about guns and gun laws.

I would like to say something to Comrade Blades the Second Amendment is the guardian of the other nine amendments in the Bill Of Rights.

Without the Second Amendment there is no free speech.

Over the last year or so Teen Vogue has shifted their focus from pop culture, make up and the latest fashions to talking about political issues. In a recent column, author Lincoln Anthony Blades argues that while California’s gun laws are not perfect, they’re a step in the right direction. You know, towards full on gun control.

Buying A Gun In The Golden State

Blades attempts to explain the gun-buying process in California, but it’s evident that he’s never actually gone through the process.

Even in states like California where reasonable gun laws exist, gun violence can still occur for myriad reasons. Anyone who knows a gun owner and has access to their weapon can take it, with or without permission, and use it for harm. As in most states, children can also be gifted weapons in California: Reveal explains that from 2010 to 2015, at least 51,672 gunswere transferred among family members in the state, where the law does not require a background check on a new receipient [sic] until after the gun changes hands.

Correction: “Children” cannot be gifted a gun. Anyone who is 18 — the age in which the government deems someone a legal adult — can be gifted a gun.

I was one of those 51,672 people who was gifted a gun between 2010 and 2015. When I went through the process, here’s what happened:

1) I was at least 18 years old.
2) I had to be legally allowed to own the firearm (not a prohibited possessor).
3) The firearm could not be an assault weapon (by California standards).
4) I had to take the Firearm Safety Certificate test at my local federal firearms licensee (FFL) and pass with at least a 75 percent.
5) I had to fill out the Report of Intra-Familial Handgun Transaction and send it to the DOJ.

Making it sound like a father goes to his gun safe, pulls out a firearm and hands it to his kid is not only wrong but it’s seriously false. It’s because of narratives like these that Americans are so uneducated on firearms and firearm policies. In fact, most of the policies that gun control advocates demand — like background checks — are already on the books.

The Typical Gun Control Arguments

Blades wasted no time making the typical gun control argument that crimes happen in gun control strongholds like California and New York because people go to other states to purchase their guns:

Secondly, strict gun laws don’t stop the transfer of weapons over state lines; many of the guns used by criminals in California were actually brought there from outside of the state. Approximately 6,000 guns used by criminals in California in 2014 alone were purchased in neighboring states like Arizona and Nevada, where there are considerably fewer restrictions. In other states with tougher gun laws, including New York, New Jersey, and Illinois, gun traffickers subvert the laws by smuggling guns legitimately purchased in states with lax laws across the state lines of jurisdictions where tough gun laws exist. Only federal gun reform or, at the very least, more stringent state-sponsored gun control could eliminate illicit gun buying.

There are so many flaws with this logic (or lack thereof). For one, gun control advocates seriously give criminals way too much credit. If a person wants to commit a crime and they decide they need a gun to carry out that crime, they’re going to do whatever they deem necessary to get their hands on a firearm. These criminals aren’t leaving states like California or New York to go and buy a gun because it’s “illegal” for them to buy one in those states. They’re getting their guns on the black market and guess what? There has to be someone or a group of someones with a clean record at the other end of the purchase (or end of the chain) who is legally buying these firearms. Making the assumption that the legal purchaser is buying them out-of-state is absurd. There’s no way to know if John Doe is buying their guns for the black market in California or Arizona. That’s mere speculation.

More gun laws can be put on the books but that’s not going to suddenly keep the guns out of the hands of criminals. You know why? Because you’d still have that one person with a clean background buying guns for criminals (known as straw purchases). Until those straw purchasers are caught committing a crime, they’re going to continue to skate by untouched.

The Well-Intentioned Attack

Of course, a gun control OpEd wouldn’t be pro-gun control if the author didn’t take a stab at the National Rifle Association (NRA) and law-abiding gun owners.

Perhaps the most pernicious aspect of the “liberal gun reform doesn’t work” ideology that comes after a shooting in a state like California is the idea that a singular method of preventing gun violence exists. In reality, there is no panacea to prevent gun violence in America: Its prevention requires a massive commitment to various strategies, enacted concurrently, from reforming the sale process, to restricting access to people on the terror watch list, to banning bump stocks, to leading organized social and political action.

Restricting a person’s access to firearms if he or she appears on the terror watch list makes sense until you really look into the process. The major problem with determining whether or not someone should be allowed to possess a firearm based on the terror watch list is the lack of due process. A person can be put on the terror watch list for almost any reason and he or she has no means of fighting the determination. Not only is that unconstitutional but it’s dangerous. If a person’s Second Amendment right is going to be taken away then they deserve to have a trial.

But what must end in this debate regarding the effectiveness of America’s gun laws is the dishonesty with which we allow gun advocates to present themselves as well-intentioned advocates who want to end gun violence, just with divergent strategies. This isn’t a struggle between two sides both interested in ending gun violence, but rather one side attempting to save lives and another side attempting to protect the National Rifle Associationby derailing the conversation. The NRA is not an institution committed to the safe handling of weapons, but rather a wealthy organization that uses the most heinous tragedies in the nation to protect the sanctity of weapons like the AR-15 while demonizing video games and stigmatizing mental health.

The worst argument that gun control advocates, like Blades, make: that gun owners don’t care about anything other than themselves and their guns. That logic is the furthest thing from the truth. Gun owners are mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters. They have children. They want to make sure their families are protected, which is why most people with concealed carry permits carry on a daily basis.

No gun owner wants to see children shot in schools. No gun owner wants to see gang members use and abuse a tool that should be used as a last resort.

Gun owners want one thing: to have the ability to utilize their Second Amendment rights without being labeled “terrorists” or blamed for criminals who commit crimes with firearms.

While it’s quick to blame the NRA for “derailing” the gun violence conversation, gun control advocates need to understand something: the NRA is one of many gun right advocacy groups who are all fighting for the same thing. The NRA is powerful because of its members, not in spite of them. These anti-gunners are quick to blame the NRA for anything and everything gun-related but all they’re really doing is placing the blame at the wrong people. They’re placing the blame on 5 million law abiding gun owners and not the criminals.

Trump Asks Sessions to Consider Prosecuting Oakland Mayor for ‘Obstruction of Justice’

Leave a comment

H/T Breitbart California.

If it is possible Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf should be prosecuted for obstruction of justice.

President Donald Trump suggested on Wednesday that Attorney General Jeff Sessions consider prosecuting Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf for “obstruction of justice” because she warned illegal immigrants in February about potential Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids.

During a White House roundtable event with elected officials and law enforcement officials from California who oppose the state’s sanctuary laws, Trump said, “You had a thousand people together, many of them were illegals, criminals… and she informed them and they all fled.”

“They all fled, or most of them fled. And that whole operation that took a long time to put together,” Trump said. “You talk about obstruction of justice. I would recommend that you look into obstruction of justice for the mayor of Oakland, California, Jeff.”

Trump continued: “[Schaaf] advises thousand people… they’re told ‘get out of here, the law enforcement’s coming.’ And you worked on that long and hard and you got there and there were very few people there. To me that’s obstruction of justice and perhaps the Department of Justice can look into that, with respect to the mayor, because it’s a big deal out there, and a lot of people are very angry about what happened.”

Trump added that “there’s a lot of hard work and a lot of danger involved” in immigration enforcement and Schaaf’s alert “was a terrible thing.”

ICE Acting Director Thomas Homan previously said that Schaaf acted like a “gang lookout yelling ‘police’” and added that at least 800 illegal immigrants were possibly not detained because of Schaaf’s warning.

Schaaf, though, has insisted on multiple occasions that she did not break the law or endanger law enforcement officials.

In March, before Sessions announced that the Trump administration was suing California over three of its sanctuary laws, Breitbart’s Joel Pollak asked Sessions in an exclusive interview about a potential Justice Department investigation into Schaaf’s actions:

Breitbart News: The number one question people on social media wanted me to ask you was: will the Justice Department be taking action against Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf, who warned illegal aliens in the Bay Area of ain impending ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] enforcement action and who has said she would be prepared to go to jail to protect her city’s status as a “sanctuary”jurisdiction. I know the acting director of ICE said there was a DOJ investigation into her. Can you comment on that? What are the prospects of that, going forward?
Sessions: I believe that the mayor made a colossal error in her statement that placed the safety of our federal law officers at risk, and that increased the likelihood that hundreds of serious criminals would avoid arrest and continue to remain on our streets, posing a risk to the people of the Bay Area. And we are in communication with [Acting ICE] Director [Thomas] Homan, and we look forward to reviewing the facts as they present them to our attorneys. But I couldn’t comment beyond that.

On Wednesday, Schaaf tweeted that she was headed to D.C. to get funding for affordable housing and homeless services and was “#NotObstructing.”

Libby Schaaf


Spent the day presenting our vision to make college a reality for every child from . Now onto DC to fight for federal $$$ for affordable housing and homeless services w bipartisan @mayorsandceos. 

A City Aims for College for All

Oakland wants every student to have the resources to attend college — and early successes offer lessons for school and city leaders everywhere

Nancy Pelosi: We’re Raising Taxes When We Win

Leave a comment

H/T Breitbart California.

In November the choice is clear if you want higher taxes vote DemocRat and if you want lower taxes vote Republican.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said Thursday that Democrats would raise taxes if they win the 2018 midterm elections.

Or, as she put it: tax cuts will be “revised.”

Bloomberg News reports that Pelosi continues to disparage President Donald Trump’s tax cut, which she once called “crumbs“:

“The tax bill is a dark cloud over our children’s future,” the California Democrat said Thursday at the Peterson Foundation Fiscal Summit in Washington. “We want to revisit in a way that puts the middle class first and reduces the debt.”

Pelosi said she would seek to negotiate a bipartisan extension of the tax bill’s middle-class tax cuts for individuals, which expire in 2026. The new tax bill would be one that “promotes growth, generates jobs and reduces the deficit,” she said.

Pelosi didn’t say whether she would seek to raise the corporate rate — which was cut to 21 percent from 35 percent — and didn’t specify other tax breaks she would seek to end.

Recently, Pelosi confirmed that she intends to return to the Speaker’s chair if Democrats win the House back in the November elections. She was the first female Speaker of the House from 2007 to 2011, but led her party to historic defeat after she pushed through the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, in 2010.

Pelosi is characterizing Democrats’ current tax plan as a way to reduce the federal deficit. However, federal deficits exploded on her watch as Speaker, even though she promised“no new deficit spending.” The national debt also rose $5 trillion during that period, thanks largely to Democrats’ heavy spending.

California Legislature Advances Bill to Socialize Healthcare Prices

1 Comment

H/T Breitbart California.

Looks like Commifornia is wanting to drive the Doctor’s out of the state.

The California State Assembly’s Health Committee passed a labor-backed bill on a strict 11-4 partisan vote last week under which the state would create a commission to socialize the price of all healthcare service costs.

The “Health Care Price Relief Act,” titled AB 3087, is sponsored by Ash Kalra (D-San Jose), a fast-rising star in progressive California Democrat circles. The legislation would create the “California Health Care Cost, Quality, and Equity Commission” as an independent state agency to control in-state healthcare costs and set the amounts accepted as payment by health plans, hospitals, physicians, physician groups, and other healthcare providers in the commercial market.

The bill is opposed by the California Hospital Association (CHA), including Providence St. Joseph Health and all of its faith-based ministries. They call the legislation a poorly constructed measure that would take billions of dollars out of the state’s healthcare system while doing nothing to improve the quality of patient care in California. The CHA is especially leery of allowing a government-run price setting scheme.

The state’s powerful labor union consortium backs the bill, including the Service Employees’ International Union; California Labor Federation; Health Access and UNITE HERE; and the California Labor Federation, representing 1,200 unions with more than 2.1 million members.

Executive Secretary-Treasurer and Chief Officer of the California Labor Federation Art Pulaski testified in the Assembly Health Committee that the cost of health care is too muchfor union members because most of their wage increases go to pay for health insurance.

Pulaski sounded like a conservative when he thundered that union members are paying more for health care to get less. But rather than unions joining the effort to dump Obamacare, they are blaming insurance companies, doctors, and hospitals.

The AB-3087 commission would set provider payment rates in the commercial insurance market based on a number of factors that would be tied to discounted Medicare rates. The advocates claim that the commission would make healthcare cost pricing more rational, more transparent, and more reflective of what it costs to provide medical services.

But Carmela Coyle, president and CEO of the CHA, says the bill is a recipe for disaster. CHA estimates the bill would make 60 percent of California hospitals unprofitable by slashing $18 billion of annual revenue. The CHA estimates 175,000 healthcare workers could lose their jobs.

AB 3087 was advanced on May 3 to the Assembly Committee on Appropriations.

Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: