I've mentioned this one here a few times...now Mother Jones has a really
nice piece about him. This fellow is the lowest of the low...and was
involved in one of the biggest health care scams ever.



Mother Jones
Public Option Enemy No. 1
By Nick Baumann | Thu July 9, 2009 4:06 AM PST

You've probably seen the ads. Ominous voice-overs warn you about how
health care reform "could put a bureaucrat in charge of your medical
decisions, not you." A massive bulldozer with "government-run insurance
plan" written on the side crushes your health care "choices." Canadians
and Britons relay horror stories of their experiences dealing with
health care in those nightmarish socialist dystopias.

The ads are the product of a multimillion-dollar ad campaign designed to
derail health care reform—especially what's been dubbed the "public
option," which would set up a government-run plan to compete with
private insurers. The man behind this ad blitz is the person who might
be Public Option Enemy No. 1: one-time hospital executive and longtime
Republican donor Richard Scott.

Back in March, Scott spent $5 million of his own money to set up a
nonprofit called Conservatives for Patients' Rights. The group aims to
be the command center for the right's fight against Democratic reform
efforts. With the major interest groups—including hospital companies,
pharmaceutical companies, and doctors—that have opposed reform in the
past holding their fire this year in order to have a seat at the
legislative table, Scott's group has filled the anti-reform void.
According to an estimate reported by the Associated Press, around $15
million has already been spent on ads favoring the Democrats' plan, and
$4 million has been spent to oppose it. Much of that $4 million has
come from Scott and CPR, and he's claimed his group will spend as much
as $20 million.

Scott isn't foolish enough to say he opposes reform outright. Instead,
his group says it wants to promote health care reform that focuses on
"choice" (of doctors), "competition" (between private insurers),
"accountability" (standardized insurance claim forms and tax reform),
and "personal responsibility" (of patients).

Not everyone thinks that's real change.

"What Rick Scott is doing is talking about protecting the status quo,
which is bankrupting businesses and bankrupting families," says Peter
Harbage, a fellow at the Center for American Progress, which supports
the public option. With so many groups—from the hospital industry to the
pharmaceutical industry to Wal-Mart—coming together in support of
reform, "it's disappointing that [Scott] doesn't want to be a
constructive part of the conversation," Harbage says.

Rep. Jerry Nadler, a New York Democrat, was more blunt: "Rick Scott
pushing health care reform is like Bernie Madoff attempting to regulate
the financial industry," he told Mother Jones.

***Scott certainly is an odd spokesman for the right's health care
agenda. The giant hospital company Scott led in the 1980s and 1990s,
Columbia/HCA, was the subject of a seven-year federal investigation. The
probe concluded with the company pleading guilty to 14 felony counts of
criminal misconduct and paying $1.7 billion to settle civil charges
relating to overbilling of state and federal governments—the largest
settlement of its kind in American history. Scott, claiming ignorance of
what was going on, was booted by his own board in 1997 and received a
$10 million golden parachute with $300 million in stock options for his
troubles.***

Scott says that his critique of the public option is predicated on his
detailed knowledge of the health care industry. But Stephen Meagher, a
lawyer who handled some of the first suits against HCA, points out that
Scott's expertise is not a straightforward matter. "He says, 'I was
never accused of any wrongdoing,' which is technically correct—but his
company was accused of tremendous wrongdoing," Meagher says. "He claims
vast experience" in the health care field "but no knowledge of his own
company."

Scott doesn't seem eager to remind visitors to CPR's website of his
past. Not surprisingly, the "Fast Facts about Richard L. Scott" section
contains no mention of the HCA fraud scandal, though it does highlight
the fact that HCA "became the world's largest private health care
provider" and was named "one of the 50 best performing companies of the
S&P 500" by BusinessWeek. The bio does mention Scott's current venture,
a company called Solantic, which "provides urgent care services,
immunizations and other services at 23 locations"—including some in
Wal-Mart stores—"across Florida." What it doesn't explain is that
Solantic makes a lot of its money by catering to the uninsured—giving
Scott a direct financial interest in preventing the expansion of health
insurance to all Americans.

Eric Burns, the president of liberal media watchdog Media Matters for
America, says Scott's advocacy is having an impact. "Scott is spending
an enormous amount of money to influence the debate over health care
reform. He's essentially cornered the market on providing false and
misleading information on the health care reform debate." Some of
Scott's ads focus on nightmarish tales of government-run health care in
places like Canada and Britain, but President Obama hasn't proposed
going to a Canadian-style single-payer system. And it is not just Media
Matters that has criticized the ads—the Annenberg Center's FactCheck.org
also found the group's ad "very misleading."

To disseminate its message, CPR has hired the same public relations
company that handled the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. The firm, CRC
Public Relations, did not respond to questions for Scott submitted by
Mother Jones. But Burns says CPR's ties to CRC are no coincidence. "CPR
is essentially the conservative Swift Boat operation for the health care
reform debate," Burns says.

The media have certainly aided Scott's efforts to dodge his history and
his conflicts of interest. CNN and Fox News, among others, have
interviewed Scott without questioning him about HCA or his new company's
dependence on the uninsured.

Jacki Schechner, a spokeswoman for Health Care for America Now, which
supports the public option, says Scott is a "nuisance," but not an
obstacle. "He has a long and sordid history," she says, adding that his
past may actually help pro-public-option advocates. "For us he's a great
face of opposition because he's such a shady guy."

CPR talks up "competition," but it's opposed to forcing private insurers
to compete with a government-run plan. That could be because
government-run insurance in other countries has proven to be vastly
cheaper and often better than the system of private insurance America
relies on. In the US, there are efficiently run public health care
plans: Medicare's administrative costs are a fraction of those of the
private plans, and Veterans Affairs provides some of the most effective
health care in the world to a population that is older and sicker than
the general public, Meagher argues. "It's kind of difficult for me to
believe someone who is so ideologically committed to competition and is
at the same time worried about competition from a public program," he says.

It's all about protecting the health care industry's bottom line, says
Nadler. "Scott and his ilk are dead wrong in their opposition to the
public option and are particularly suspect in their motivations. The
health care industry doesn't see kids with colds; they see dollar signs."

Scott may be fighting a losing battle. Most polls show that the public
option is very popular, and this week Sen. Harry Reid, the majority
leader, encouraged Sen. Max Baucus to stop seeking GOP votes on the
health care legislation he's writing and move forward with a bill with a
public option. The writing's on the wall, says Roger Hickey, the
codirector of the Campaign for America's Future.

"The public loves the idea that if we get reform, it's not just going to
be the Rick Scotts of the world that control the health care system,"
Hickey says. "It turns out the public loves what he's trying to vilify."

"HK" wrote in message
m...

I've mentioned this one here a few times...now Mother Jones has a really
nice piece about him. This fellow is the lowest of the low...and was
involved in one of the biggest health care scams ever.



Mother Jones
Public Option Enemy No. 1
By Nick Baumann | Thu July 9, 2009 4:06 AM PST


I need to find the link to the analysis of what it costs, in terms of energy
consumption, to post stuff to a newsgroup. It is surprisingly expensive,
relatively. The same amount of energy is consumed by those that download
and read the stuff.

It's time for a filter, I think. Not a Bozo filter. Windows Mail (and I
think OE) allow you to create a filter that will automatically ignore or
delete messages that exceed a certain, selectable number of lines.

I think maybe 50-75 lines should do it. Harry's cut and paste was one of
his shorter ones, but it still contains over 150 lines.

This response is about 31 lines, including the reference and short quote.

50-70 lines should be enough for normal discussions and will certainly
eliminate most of the energy wasting cut and pastes.

Eisboch

Eisboch wrote:

"HK" wrote in message
m...

I've mentioned this one here a few times...now Mother Jones has a
really nice piece about him. This fellow is the lowest of the
low...and was involved in one of the biggest health care scams ever.



Mother Jones
Public Option Enemy No. 1
By Nick Baumann | Thu July 9, 2009 4:06 AM PST


I need to find the link to the analysis of what it costs, in terms of
energy consumption, to post stuff to a newsgroup. It is surprisingly
expensive, relatively. The same amount of energy is consumed by those
that download and read the stuff.

It's time for a filter, I think. Not a Bozo filter. Windows Mail (and
I think OE) allow you to create a filter that will automatically ignore
or delete messages that exceed a certain, selectable number of lines.

I think maybe 50-75 lines should do it. Harry's cut and paste was one
of his shorter ones, but it still contains over 150 lines.

This response is about 31 lines, including the reference and short quote.

50-70 lines should be enough for normal discussions and will certainly
eliminate most of the energy wasting cut and pastes.

Eisboch




Or...you could take a pill for your short attention span.

No one is forcing you to read more than 50-75 lines, Richard, or forcing
you to give up your ignorance on significant issues. This isn't a
boating newsgroup, after all.

"HK" wrote in message
m...

Or...you could take a pill for your short attention span.

No one is forcing you to read more than 50-75 lines, Richard, or forcing
you to give up your ignorance on significant issues. This isn't a boating
newsgroup, after all.


Right.

Eisboch (practicing what I preach)

HK wrote:
Eisboch wrote:

"HK" wrote in message
m...

I've mentioned this one here a few times...now Mother Jones has a
really nice piece about him. This fellow is the lowest of the
low...and was involved in one of the biggest health care scams ever.



Mother Jones
Public Option Enemy No. 1
By Nick Baumann | Thu July 9, 2009 4:06 AM PST


I need to find the link to the analysis of what it costs, in terms of
energy consumption, to post stuff to a newsgroup. It is surprisingly
expensive, relatively. The same amount of energy is consumed by those
that download and read the stuff.

It's time for a filter, I think. Not a Bozo filter. Windows Mail
(and I think OE) allow you to create a filter that will automatically
ignore or delete messages that exceed a certain, selectable number of
lines.

I think maybe 50-75 lines should do it. Harry's cut and paste was
one of his shorter ones, but it still contains over 150 lines.

This response is about 31 lines, including the reference and short quote.

50-70 lines should be enough for normal discussions and will certainly
eliminate most of the energy wasting cut and pastes.

Eisboch




Or...you could take a pill for your short attention span.

No one is forcing you to read more than 50-75 lines, Richard, or forcing
you to give up your ignorance on significant issues. This isn't a
boating newsgroup, after all.



No one is forcing anyone to read even one line of your biased ignorant
understanding of significant issues.
This truly is a boating newsgroup. The newsgroup name clearly says so.
It is your bullheaded ignorance that is pulling the group off topic. God
only knows why you think you are enlightening anyone with your stupid
patter.

HK wrote:

Or...you could take a pill for your short attention span.

No one is forcing you to read more than 50-75 lines, Richard, or forcing
you to give up your ignorance on significant issues. This isn't a
boating newsgroup, after all.

Not as long as you are here, WAFA.

"HK" wrote in message
m...


No one is forcing you to read more than 50-75 lines, Richard, or forcing
you to give up your ignorance on significant issues. This isn't a boating
newsgroup, after all.


That's a pretty stupid thing to say.
You are implying I am ignorant and don't want to give it up?

Idiot.

I just don't need to be politically "educated" by you in a boating newsgroup
via 300 lines and wasted bandwidth of your typical cut and paste. You could
just as easily supply a link, or refrain from these long winded, energy
wasting, politically biased recitals.

Thank you in advance for your thoughtful consideration of others.

Eisboch

Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
m...

No one is forcing you to read more than 50-75 lines, Richard, or forcing
you to give up your ignorance on significant issues. This isn't a boating
newsgroup, after all.


That's a pretty stupid thing to say.
You are implying I am ignorant and don't want to give it up?

Idiot.

I just don't need to be politically "educated" by you in a boating newsgroup
via 300 lines and wasted bandwidth of your typical cut and paste. You could
just as easily supply a link, or refrain from these long winded, energy
wasting, politically biased recitals.

Thank you in advance for your thoughtful consideration of others.

Eisboch




You're entirely welcome. I am delighted to give you the same thoughtful
consideration you give me. In fact, I think I give you more.

"HK" wrote in message
m...

Thank you in advance for your thoughtful consideration of others.

Eisboch


You're entirely welcome. I am delighted to give you the same thoughtful
consideration you give me. In fact, I think I give you more.

Let me read it back to you.

"No one is forcing you to read more than 50-75 lines, Richard, or forcing
you to give up your ignorance on significant issues. This isn't a boating
newsgroup, after all."

Now, concentrate. Squint your eyes and contract your sphincters as best you
can.
What did you say?

I take it as being one of the most arrogant, egotistical, selfserving
statements you have made .... in at least the last hour or so.

Eisboch

On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 17:04:47 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:



I think maybe 50-75 lines should do it. Harry's cut and paste was one of
his shorter ones, but it still contains over 150 lines.

This response is about 31 lines, including the reference and short quote.

50-70 lines should be enough for normal discussions and will certainly
eliminate most of the energy wasting cut and pastes.

I have a 1000 line limit set in Agent. Eliminates binaries.
Anything else that looks useless, like most of Harrys cut and pastes,
I just delete them unread. Once you've used Agent for a while,
weeding out garbages posts is effortless.
Filters will never replace common sense.

--Vic