One of the more popular services at Solantic, the urgent care chain co-founded by Florida Gov. Rick Scott, is drug testing, according to Solantic CEO Karen Bowling.
Given Solantic’s role in that marketplace, critics are again asking whether Scott’s policy initiatives -- this time, requiring drug testing of state employees and welfare recipients -- are designed to benefit Scott’s bottom line.
Nah, somebody whose company got fined $1.7 BILLION for MEDICARE FRAUD would never do anything to enhance his bottom line at the expense of the taxpayers...again... Would he?
LadyJazzer wrote: Nah, somebody whose company got fined $1.7 BILLION for MEDICARE FRAUD would never do anything to enhance his bottom line at the expense of the taxpayers...again... Would he?
That's interesting LJ, I was unaware that Scott was indicted or even questioned in the case. I could be wrong so maybe you could enlighten me?
The left is angry because they are now being judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.
In interviews, Scott accepts responsibility for the problems at Columbia/HCA, but denies direct knowledge of the fraud.
"There's no question that mistakes were made and as CEO, I have to accept responsibility for those mistakes. I was focused on lowering costs and making the hospitals more efficient,'' Scott told the St. Petersburg Times this month. "I could have had more internal and external controls. I learned hard lessons, and I've taken that lesson and it's helped me become a better business person and a better leader."
In its claim, the Sink campaign says Scott "was forced to resign as the head of a company that pled guilty to massive amounts of systematic fraud, including 14 felonies, leading to a historic $1.7 billion fine." Scott's former company, Columbia/HCA, did plead guilty to 14 felony charges stemming from a massive federal fraud investigation, and Scott himself admits the company wound up paying $1.7 billion in fines. Whether Scott was forced to resign or not is something of an HR employment trick, but media accounts certainly suggest the company's board of directors was under pressure from shareholders to shake things up.
I guess if your new standard of what is considered despicable is "whether or not someone is indicted/convicted", then we can finally put stupidity like Bill Ayers (never convicted); Bill Clinton (never convicted), ad nauseum, to rest.
I guess if your new standard of what is considered despicable is "whether or not someone is indicted/convicted", then we can finally put stupidity like Bill Ayers (never convicted); Bill Clinton (never convicted), ad nauseum, to rest.
Would the same by any chance apply to G.W. Bush?
Nah, I knew there was a double (at least) standard used here.
Experience enables you to recognize a mistake when you make it again - Jeanne Pincha-Tulley
Comprehensive is Latin for there is lots of bad stuff in it - Trey Gowdy
In interviews, Scott accepts responsibility for the problems at Columbia/HCA, but denies direct knowledge of the fraud.
"There's no question that mistakes were made and as CEO, I have to accept responsibility for those mistakes. I was focused on lowering costs and making the hospitals more efficient,'' Scott told the St. Petersburg Times this month. "I could have had more internal and external controls. I learned hard lessons, and I've taken that lesson and it's helped me become a better business person and a better leader."
In its claim, the Sink campaign says Scott "was forced to resign as the head of a company that pled guilty to massive amounts of systematic fraud, including 14 felonies, leading to a historic $1.7 billion fine." Scott's former company, Columbia/HCA, did plead guilty to 14 felony charges stemming from a massive federal fraud investigation, and Scott himself admits the company wound up paying $1.7 billion in fines. Whether Scott was forced to resign or not is something of an HR employment trick, but media accounts certainly suggest the company's board of directors was under pressure from shareholders to shake things up.
I guess if your new standard of what is considered despicable is "whether or not someone is indicted/convicted", then we can finally put stupidity like Bill Ayers (never convicted); Bill Clinton (never convicted), ad nauseum, to rest.
He wasn't even questioned...I'm sure if there was actual evidence, some crazed liberal would have been on the case. And as for the terrorist Ayers, he proudly admitted what he did:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.h ... wanted=all
''I don't regret setting bombs,'' Bill Ayers said. ''I feel we didn't do enough.'' Mr. Ayers, who spent the 1970's as a fugitive in the Weather Underground
And as for Clinton, did he not lie under oath and abuse his position of authority or did I just imagine that?
You are spinning pretty hard today LJ.
The left is angry because they are now being judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.
I can never keep up with where your "line" is today... Is it "not questioned" but "admitted guilt"? Is it "indicted" but "not convicted"? Is it "convicted" but the "judge was unfair (and by extension, of the "wrong party")? We know that wherever the line is today, it's the neo-con line, and only applies to the Righties... The libruls have a different standard...
So, refresh my memory...Where is the conservatard line today? Seems like admitting that $1.7 BILLION was cheated out of the taxpayers while "not admitting personal guilt" (where have we heard that before?) is some kind of new low in what the cons think is okay--as long as it's a con doing it....
LadyJazzer wrote: I can never keep up with where your "line" is today... Is it "not questioned" but "admitted guilt"? Is it "indicted" but "not convicted"? Is it "convicted" but the "judge was unfair (and by extension, of the "wrong party")? We know that wherever the line is today, it's the neo-con line, and only applies to the Righties... The libruls have a different standard...
So, refresh my memory...Where is the conservatard line today? Seems like admitting that $1.7 BILLION was cheated out of the taxpayers while "not admitting personal guilt" (where have we heard that before?) is some kind of new low in what the cons think is okay--as long as it's a con doing it....
SHOW ME THE PROOF HE DID ANYTHING WRONG ...he admitted nothing other than being the CEO. If one of Obama's appointed czars commits some kind a fraud, should Obama be charged with a crime too? Show me the proof he did anything wrong or stfu.
The left is angry because they are now being judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.
