RICK SCOTT FOUGHT AGAINST HILLARYCARE...CLINTON ADMIN. TARGETED HIM (FL-gov)

FactReal ^ | 10/31/2010 | FactReal

[FactReal]

Rick Scott Fought Against HillaryCare...the Clinton Admin. Responded with Regulations and Investigations - Rick Scott, then-CEO of Columbia/HCA, coordinated private health providers to fight HillaryCare during the Clinton Administration - After HillaryCare was defeated, the Clinton Administration decided to give a hard time to every health care group that had opposed them. They pushed for stricter interpretation of Medicare regulations which consisted of well over 100,000 pages. - The Clintons targeted many health providers in addition to Rick Scott’s Columbia/HCA.(Forbes, 1998, Other companies fined) Investigations took years. - The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Clinton regulations were so ambiguous and complex that reasonable people could disagree on their application and, consequently, dismissed cases filed against HCA employees Bill McCollum Defended Rick Scott's Company in the 1990s In 1998, then-congressman Bill McCollum defended health companies like Columbia/HCA against the Clinton Administration's witch hunt: (Congressional Records: March 19, 1998; Page E434) "In our zeal to crack down on health care fraud and abuse, we must be careful not to throw our nets so wide that we ensnare honest providers who are making inadvertent billing mistakes," McCollum said March 19, 1998, when he introduced his Health Care Claims Guidance Act in the U.S. House of Representatives. [...] Columbia/HCA wasn't the only hospital targeted by federal investigators. It was the most high-profile, however, because it was the largest private chain. The company controlled 340 hospitals, 135 surgery centers and 550 home health locations in 37 states. With so many hospitals facing investigations during the Clinton administration, the American Hospital Association, which received major backing from Columbia/HCA, fought back in Congress with the legislation that McCollum helped sponsor. Facts about the Medicare case - Rick Scott was never indicted or arrested. Simply, he was never charged with any crime. - Prosecutors never attempted to depose Scott nor found evidence he was directly involved in the fraud: Peter Chatfield, who spent seven years working on a Columbia-HCA civil case brought by two whistleblowers, said that deposing Scott was not a high priority for the case. "His e-mails were mostly motivational." "After sifting through years of discovery documents, Chatfield said he never had a feel for whether Scott knew of any wrongdoing." - The convictions were tossed out for the only 2 individuals initially convicted of wrongdoing at Columbia/HCA. - On 7/25/97, Rick Scott along with 2 other executives resigned. - Rick Scott wanted to challenge how regulations are interpreted, but the board of directors wanted to settle: Scott "took the position that the courts ultimately did, which was that there could be honest disagreement over how the regulations were interpreted,” Scott campaign spokeswoman Jennifer Baker said. - In 2000, three years after Scott left the company, HCA agreed to settle and pay $840 million in criminal fines and civil damages and penalties. In 2002, HCA agreed to pay an additional $881 million. - The $1.7 billion fines in context: Columbia/HCA was the largest hospital company in the nation and world in 1997. Columbia/HCA operated 343 hospitals, so a $1.7 billion fine is equivalent to approx. $4.9 million per hospital. (Comparing fines, Other companies fined) - Whistleblowers were offered 25% of the settlement - Problems pre-date Scott: "Additionally, some of the issues being pinned on Scott originated before he entered the picture and some came from hospitals absorbed into Columbia/HCA through merger or acquisition" i.e., Columbia Fawcett Memorial reimbursement problems 6 years before being acquired by Columbia >>>More here

[DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis]

Why the excerpt?

[shibumi]

Better question:

How many times are you going to post the same thing with minor variations in title and text?

(Just a quick glance, but I think this is the third time today for this story.)

[OneVike]

Depending how long between each post, I don't see a problem with multiple posts.

There are over 300,000 registered Freepers, and well over 1.5 million that frequent FR in a week, How many do you think might have missed the first two?

Not all Freepers or lurkers spend 24/7 on FR, and they miss a lot of news because of it. To deny them the chance to see the story is the same as the MSM running a story on the 6:00 news once and never mentioning it again. Then when we complain that they never covered an important story Americans have a right to hear, the MSM will reply,

"What do you mean? We covered the story."

Maybe you should spend less time complaining about double posts and more time reading the news you may have missed yourself when you were out that no one is double posting out of fear someone like you will complain about.

Just some friendly advice from an old timer my Friend.

[shibumi]

"Maybe you should spend less time complaining about double posts and more time reading the news you may have missed yourself when you were out that no one is double posting out of fear someone like you will complain about. "

My other hobby is trying to diagram sentences like that one.

[theymakemesick]

Well said, thanks. I would have missed many postings if it weren’t for multiple postings. These ‘blog-pimper police’ are as bad as the spelling and grammar police like (not)humblegunner. They bring nothing to the discussion, just cut down people that are on the same political side as they... well, maybe they’re not on our side. Maybe they’re just rabble-rousers trying to cause desent.

[shibumi]

It’s “dissent.”

(We’re not trying to unmail your letters.)

[Grams A]

Thanks for posting the article. Had not seen before but a friend in Florida brought up the issue and said they weren’t voting for Scott because of it. After they read the info they changed their mind.

[OneVike]

My other hobby is trying to diagram sentences like that one.

It is a tricky thing to learn. I learned it from reading the Apostle Paul's many long run-on sentences that would never be allowed by any of today's editors. However, because he was appointed by God Himself, Paul was given a pass.

:>)

[OneVike]

Well said, thanks.

Your welcome. I am going to grammatically correct it an use it whenever I read of another Freeper complaining about double posts from now on.

I just get irritated like you when they do it. because as you said,

"I would have missed many postings if it weren’t for multiple postings. These ‘blog-pimper police’ are as bad as the spelling and grammar police like (not)humblegunner. They bring nothing to the discussion, just cut down people that are on the same political side as they."

Later.