Medicare Fraud

I repeat: Where was your outrage then? Why wasn't HCA and Scott "watched" by da gubm't then?

If he wasn't guilty of anything, why did he agree to play da Gubm't $2 BILLION? Can you say: "P-L-E-A__ B-A-R-G-A-I-N"?

Where was your outrage then? Why wasn't HCA and Scott "watched" by da gubm't then?

LadyJazzer wrote: I repeat: Where was your outrage then? Why wasn't HCA and Scott "watched" by da gubm't then?

If he wasn't guilty of anything, why did he agree to play da Gubm't $2 BILLION? Can you say: "P-L-E-A__ B-A-R-G-A-I-N"?

Where was your outrage then? Why wasn't HCA and Scott "watched" by da gubm't then?

Scott left HCA in 1997. Where was my outrage in 1997? I think I was just looking at a BBS board with a 56k modem.

The settlements came 5 years after he left. He was never implicated for anything, not that it matters to you, and no, he didn't agree to pay anything to the government.

But if you are still angry about it after 16 years, how about starting a Rick Scott in 1997 topic? Maybe I'll even pull out my old modem, not that I'm sure I can find a number to connect with it now. I might still have my old Mac in a box somewhere too.

Do you have any comments about the original post?

It doesn't matter to me because of the magic phrase: "The Company admits no wrongdoing"...(but write a check for $2 BILLION to settle anyway)...

You're right. The man was, and is, a crook.

The original post?... Lessee $91 million, over three years... That works out to $30 million a year... I wonder how many Bridges-to-Nowhere, or " indoor rain forest and aquarium in the prairies of Iowa", or grants for "the Port of LaSalle project in Illinois, including the restoration of a replica mule barn", that would cover?

Yeah, if it's illegal someone should have caught it. (Of course, someone should have caught the cooked-intelligence that was used to get us into two unnecessary wars on the pretext of WMD's that never existed...) But I digress....

Oh, now it's the "Company" and not Scott as you claimed before. Keep making stuff up and diverting LJ, and keep us entertained.

If he wasn't guilty of anything, why did he agree to play da Gubm't

Again, the payments were 5 years after he left the company. He was never charged with anything. I might as well discuss Whitewater because it would be just as relevent to this topic.

Any comments on the actual original post?

Yeah! just found my 56k modem from 1997. Looks as good as new! :woo hoo:

Hey, who's at the TOP? Where does the buck stop?

If he wasn't guilty of anything, why did he agree to play da Gubm't $2 BILLION? Can you say: "P-L-E-A__ B-A-R-G-A-I-N"?

You want to split hairs?...Be my guest...

LadyJazzer wrote: Hey, who's at the TOP? Where does the buck stop?

If he wasn't guilty of anything, why did he agree to play da Gubm't $2 BILLION? Can you say: "P-L-E-A__ B-A-R-G-A-I-N"?

You want to split hairs?...Be my guest...

I'm sure you have a link showing that Scott agreed to pay $2 billion? I have one that says he didn't.

Since I've already posted the information from Wiki, I suggest that, as usual, your outrage is "selective" based on the political leanings of the crook involved.

Have a day...

LadyJazzer wrote: Since I've already posted the information from Wiki, I suggest that, as usual, your outrage is "selective" based on the political leanings of the crook involved.

Have a day...

You still haven't posted one link for your first source that you heavily edited (hey, it may be Wiki, but I'm sure they didn't publish it like what you quoted). Nor have you posted a source to show that Scott agreed to pay the government $2 billion, which was what we were just talking about. And I have a link to show he did no such thing. But I'll wait for your link showing Scott agreed to pay $2 billion first.

By the way, do you have any comments about this actual topic at all?

pineinthegrass wrote:

LadyJazzer wrote: Since I've already posted the information from Wiki, I suggest that, as usual, your outrage is "selective" based on the political leanings of the crook involved.

Have a day...

You still haven't posted one link for your first source that you heavily edited (hey, it may be Wiki, but I'm sure they didn't publish it like what you quoted). Nor have you posted a source to show that Scott agreed to pay the government $2 billion, which was what we were just talking about. And I have a link to show he did no such thing. But I'll wait for your link showing Scott agreed to pay $2 billion first.

By the way, do you have any comments about this actual topic at all?

:thumbsup:

pineinthegrass wrote:

LadyJazzer wrote: Since I've already posted the information from Wiki, I suggest that, as usual, your outrage is "selective" based on the political leanings of the crook involved.

Have a day...

You still haven't posted one link for your first source that you heavily edited (hey, it may be Wiki, but I'm sure they didn't publish it like what you quoted). Nor have you posted a source to show that Scott agreed to pay the government $2 billion, which was what we were just talking about. And I have a link to show he did no such thing. But I'll wait for your link showing Scott agreed to pay $2 billion first.

By the way, do you have any comments about this actual topic at all?

Nice work there pine... it's like trying to get a straight answer out of a politician. lol