quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx


ORIGINAL: Edwird

The sugar growers who said 'fuck off!'

Why do we grow sugar in amerika?

quote:

ORIGINAL: SunDominant
Anytime the Federal government declares a "War" on anything, it means that money will flow forever because there are no tangible end goals that can be realistically reached to signal success. We will always have drugs, poverty, and children that struggle with academics. The point is that the availability of drugs, poverty levels, and dropout rates have all increased. The government creates more problems in some areas than it solves, then says it needs more money to solve the additional problems it creates. The best solution to a cultural problem is a change in culture, not additional laws, regulations, and deficit spending.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx
ORIGINAL: Edwird

The sugar growers who said 'fuck off!'

Why do we grow sugar in amerika?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwird

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx
ORIGINAL: Edwird

The sugar growers who said 'fuck off!'

Why do we grow sugar in amerika?

Believe it or not, even Jeb Bush wanted to lower the US tariffs on Brazilian sugar-grown ethanol. But Monsanto has near monopoly/hegemony on any and all crops in the US (got the patents), so we use the less efficient corn ethanol, and that on top of gifting tax-payer-money 45 cents a gallon to the oil refineries for mixing in 10% ethanol makes it unlikely for the situation to change anytime soon.

That country is going through various struggles now. I hope the US either stays out of the way or, by some miracle, actually does something useful/helpful for a change.

Last I looked, Brazil was the 7th largest importer of US exports. What I call a 'good neighbor.' The US should be a good neighbor too, and buy a bunch of stuff from Brazil. Like sugar or ethanol, for starters.

If, in further meetings on trade agreements between the two countries, we shoot any IMF or World Bank guys as soon as they step into the lobby, things might work out OK.

And people accuse me of being "anti gun." Far from it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

Is this the same Rick Scott whose company tried to fleece the Federal Govt out of hundreds of millions in Medicare scams?

According to wiki"
"He resigned as chief executive of Columbia/HCA in 1997, amid a controversy over the company's business and Medicare billing practices; the company ultimately admitted to fourteen felonies and agreed to pay the federal government over $600 million, which was the largest fraud settlement in US history. Scott was not implicated and no charges were leveled against him personally."

"On March 19, 1997, investigators from the FBI, the Internal Revenue Service and the Department of Health and Human Services served search warrants at Columbia/HCA facilities in El Paso and on dozens of doctors with suspected ties to the company.[31] Eight days after the initial raid, Scott signed his last SEC report as a hospital executive.[32] Four months later the board of directors pressured Scott to resign as Chairman and CEO.[33] He was paid $9.88 million in a settlement, and left owning 10 million shares of stock worth over $350 million.[34][35][36] The directors had been warned in the company's annual public reports to stockholders that incentives Columbia/HCA offered doctors could run afoul of a federal anti-kickback law passed in order to limit or eliminate instances of conflicts of interest in Medicare and Medicaid.[32]"

In settlements reached in 2000 and 2002, Columbia/HCA pleaded guilty to 14 felonies and agreed to a $600+ million fine in the largest fraud settlement in U.S. history. Columbia/HCA admitted systematically overcharging the government by claiming marketing costs as reimbursable, by striking illegal deals with home care agencies, and by filing false data about use of hospital space. They also admitted fraudulently billing Medicare and other health programs by inflating the seriousness of diagnoses and to giving doctors partnerships in company hospitals as a kickback for the doctors referring patients to HCA. They filed false cost reports, fraudulently billing Medicare for home health care workers, and paid kickbacks in the sale of home health agencies and to doctors to refer patients. In addition, they gave doctors "loans" never intending to be repaid, free rent, free office furniture, and free drugs from hospital pharmacies.[3][4][5][6][7]

In late 2002, HCA agreed to pay the U.S. government $631 million, plus interest, and pay $17.5 million to state Medicaid agencies, in addition to $250 million paid up to that point to resolve outstanding Medicare expense claims.[37] In all, civil lawsuits cost HCA more than $2 billion to settle; at the time this was the largest fraud settlement in U.S. history.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Scott

It would appear that Scott has unique 'expertise' to comment on Federal funding.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

It is very clear that the company of which he was chief executive defrauded Medicare:
"the company ultimately admitted to fourteen felonies and agreed to pay the federal government over $600 million, which was the largest fraud settlement in US history"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Scott

As chief executive, he is ultimately responsible for all the company's activities, and answers for all the company's activities. So either he knew about the fraud, in which case he's criminally responsible or, if he didn't know about the fraud, in which case he wasn't up to doing his job. Either way it's a big black mark against Mr Scott's competence.

If you think that a person with this black mark on his CV is an appropriate person to comment on/make judgements about Federal funding issues, that's entirely up to you. Personally I wouldn't let any one with that history within a bull's roar of Federal funding, or any position of public trust for that matter.

quote:

Nnanji
He took ultimate responsibility and resigned. What is the black mark?

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

Nnanji
He took ultimate responsibility and resigned. What is the black mark?

No he didn't take responsibility. according to wiki:
"Four months later the board of directors pressured Scott to resign as Chairman and CEO.[33] He was paid $9.88 million in a settlement, and left owning 10 million shares of stock worth over $350 million.[34][35][36] The directors had been warned in the company's annual public reports to stockholders that incentives Columbia/HCA offered doctors could run afoul of a federal anti-kickback law passed in order to limit or eliminate instances of conflicts of interest in Medicare and Medicaid.[32]"

He was kicked out by the board, not voluntarily resigning and taking responsibility for the crimes committed on his watch. Furthermore, it seems that, despite being made aware of these crimes taking place, he took no action to stop them. The black mark is that he was either complicit with the crimes or unaware of the crimes, in which case he was utterly negligent in the discharge of his duties ie utterly incompetent. Take your pick.

Either way he is grossly unsuited for positions of responsibility and trust.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

It is very clear that the company of which he was chief executive defrauded Medicare:
"the company ultimately admitted to fourteen felonies and agreed to pay the federal government over $600 million, which was the largest fraud settlement in US history"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Scott

As chief executive, he is ultimately responsible for all the company's activities, and answers for all the company's activities. So either he knew about the fraud, in which case he's criminally responsible or, if he didn't know about the fraud, in which case he wasn't up to doing his job. Either way it's a big black mark against Mr Scott's competence.

If you think that a person with this black mark on his CV is an appropriate person to comment on/make judgements about Federal funding issues, that's entirely up to you. Personally I wouldn't let any one with that history within a bull's roar of Federal funding, or any position of public trust for that matter.

He took ultimate responsibility and resigned. What is the black mark? Nobody said he was involved with the fraud. No charges were filed against him. He resigned, which any honorable person would. You're reading that as a black mark. Where is the black mark outside your fantasies?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

Nnanji
He took ultimate responsibility and resigned. What is the black mark?

No he didn't take responsibility. according to wiki:
"Four months later the board of directors pressured Scott to resign as Chairman and CEO.[33] He was paid $9.88 million in a settlement, and left owning 10 million shares of stock worth over $350 million.[34][35][36] The directors had been warned in the company's annual public reports to stockholders that incentives Columbia/HCA offered doctors could run afoul of a federal anti-kickback law passed in order to limit or eliminate instances of conflicts of interest in Medicare and Medicaid.[32]"

He was kicked out by the board, not voluntarily resigning and taking responsibility for the crimes committed on his watch. Furthermore, it seems that, despite being made aware of these crimes taking place, he took no action to stop them. The black mark is that he was either complicit with the crimes or unaware of the crimes, in which case he was utterly negligent in the discharge of his duties ie utterly incompetent. Take your pick.

Either way he is grossly unsuited for positions of responsibility and trust.

Lol, you read the link and find that the board didn't like his management style and had decided to force him out the next time a problem arose. When the Medicare stuff came up, they used that as an excuse. They didn't like his management style because he was selling interests in the system to doctors and the board didn't want the doctors making management decisions.

Sounds pretty black markish to me ehh? Considering he built the whole system from scratch he was probably pretty astute at running it and he didn't listen to the board, which pissed them off.

I wonder if you went all conspiracy theory like this when Clinton met with the AG at the airport in Phoenix or if you only do that to people on your enemies list.

Nice try. *yawn*