Anti-health reformer's dubious past

Turns out Rick Scott, the man in the commercial, might not be the best spokesman for those opposing Obama's reform plans.

I think he is the "perfect spokesman for the republicans.

Mr. Scott was ousted by his own board of directors in 1997 amid the nation's biggest health care fraud scandal.

Nationalizing health-government control, means that the government will develop protocols on how your illness/disease is managed. You and your doctor are out of the loop.

If the government says no CAT scan...no CAT scan, unless you want to pay for it out of pocket.

If you're elderly...certain operations won't be available due to your age.

If you need certain drugs for a serious illness those drugs may not be part of the government's protocol to manage your illness.

Why do you think foreigners come to America for medical care? For the fun of it? No, because their nationalized healthcare forbid the operation, the drugs, the treatment.

Read the British/UK newspapers, please. Everyday there are articles written about the British public's dilemma.

France's nationalized healthcare carries an approximate 20% tax, PLUS 92% of the french carry a SECOND health insurance!!!

They have a gatekeeper doctor who makes referrals to specialists.

It is a two-tiered system and only those who have the $$$$ get to see the better doctors.

In addition, the French tax: tobacco, ALCOHOL and pharmacuetical companies' revenue...(get out of those stocks...if the democrats get their way...of course those government officials will have the BEST medical care, while we, minions receive LESS care than we currently have).

The crunch is that France does not advance medical care, they just manage and depend on other countries for their advancements.

It will be a step back into the dark ages for Americans to have nationalized healthcare.

America is different, please vote for candidates who do NOT want to nationalized healthcare...doomed if you're aged and in poorer health.

Google: Healthcare Economist

I'd call him a Republican. As we found out during the last eight (8) years and with Senator McCain's campaign, they have the talent of talking out of every orifice, on their body !! They have no face, as long as they can grab their, and our, share, of the bounty of this land. Given that talent, of speaking from many different locations, on their body, most of what they have to convey, is nothing but dirt !! What was formerly referred to, as, potty mouth !! Come on, boys and girls, of the Republican Party, you can do better than that, although you haven't proved it, in years !! I still have faith in you and your Party, but you must discharge the waste, you've been burdened with, for the last 30 years !! The likes of Getrich and Limpbag and Robberson. and of course, the whiner of a " nation of whiners ", Gramm, must be expelled, forthwith, or your Party will reach new depths, if that is possible !! I do wish you good luck, because any Party that can bring forth to this nation, a Lincoln, a Dirksen, or an Eisenhower, is not all bad !!
So, come on, boys and girls, you have your work cut out for you !! Getting rid of the dead wood, will be difficult, but definitely, not impossible !! The Bennets, the Gramms, the Getriches and the Limpbags, have taken their share of money, let others have a chance at a decent living, an honest living !! No more scoundrels, please !!
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE AND WHOLE. NOW.

Typical Obama pick.

Typical Obama pick.

Posted by: Inky | April 2, 2009 10:35 AM

Once again....priceless!!!!!

Reading an Inky post is like reading a magic 8 ball.....the answer is completely irrelevent and usually leaves you scratching your head.

Looks like this piece of garbage Rick Scott is a tried and true pug.....business man, nice suit, crook, and the most important requirment....liar.

Bill, Don & Lochness, it has been a fun run here. I am moving to QC this weekend, so I might be absent for a while, or permanently. We will see. I'm sure you guys can keep the pukes in line.

X...........I will surely miss you in the "good" fight. I have many connections in business here.....if there is any thing I can help with......I would be glad to help in any way I can. If you like.....I can give you my e-mail address through Mark and maybe be able to help. Take that board with you and keep in touch.

Good luck sir.

"Nationalizing health-government control, means that the government will develop protocols on how your illness/disease is managed. You and your doctor are out of the loop.
If the government says no CAT scan...no CAT scan, unless you want to pay for it out of pocket."

What you just wrote is also true of the current quasi-criminal endeavor called the 'private health insurance industy' in America.

We don't have to do it just like the Brits or anyone else. But care decisions are ALWAYS reviewed by the private health insurers.

Who do you think you are fooling? Hundreds of millions of Americans KNOW the current ins. system is beyond help, or deserving of reform.

120 bankruptcies a minute in the US are occurring due to medical bills, and a large number HAVE INSURANCE.

I might add that infant mortality is higher and life expectancy lower in the US than in UK, Can, Fr, Ger, Aus.

I might also add, I am in favor of protocols, and if a procedure won't result in a decent quality of life when I am old, I don't want it done.

Hey XL,
Keep posting from QC!

Good luck to you, X. It was a good campaign we waged and won !! I look forward to continued contributions from you, when you have settled !! Remember, that's how we won: All hands on deck !! Good luck, to you, in your new venture and God bless you and your family.
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE AND WHOLE. NOW.

Is tis CHANGE we wer promice.

No To Healthcare, Are you kidding? The insurance companies are controlling the access to care today. They set the protocols. If you want a CT scan and the insurance company does not think it is necessary, you have to pay for it yourself. You may actually have more control of your care with government run healthcare. Medicare does not have half of the controls of most insurance companies. You at least have a vote with the government. You have almost no control with an insurance company. I work for one.

Health kare for everyone??
Remynds me of Hitler.....

dont lik his SOCIALISM progams. will vote palin in '12.

could you change mi diepers?

Hey X,

Good luck in QC, and mind your Tim-bits. Thanks for your splendid contributions on The Swamp, and do check in from time to time. ✇

Okay, go ahead and shoot this messenger. Rick Scott’s history is much too distracting to make him an effective spokesperson. However, he needs to be replaced rather than have his position simply forgotten.
.
We are done for, as a nation of free people, if we allow Congress to occupy the entire field of health care for everyone in this country. What is at stake here is not simply the expedient of providing affordable health care. As of this moment, Congress does not have the power to micromanage our lives. If, on the other hand, Congress arrogates to itself the power to manage health care in the country, it will thereby acquire the power to regulate every facet of human behavior under the rubric of reducing health care costs. After all, how can we expect people to remain responsible and not succumb to the moral hazard of bad and reckless behavior when the federal government is poised to take responsibility for all of the consequences? (We’ve seen this dilemma play out in the financial markets already.) As Thomas Paine once said, “That which we obtain too easily, we esteem too lightly.” How, then, can we expect the federal government to refrain from such micromanagement? And what human behavior cannot be regulated when one has the power to regulate health? No aspect of our personal or social existence would remain free from government control or potential government interference. Thus, we have to ask ourselves the deeper question of how much personal autonomy we wish to sacrifice for the benefits of a government run health care system.
.
You can also forget any notion of privacy rights or choices related to autonomy. Those considerations would have to bow to the government’s overriding interest of providing health care to everyone and minimizing costs. Furthermore, once the government has your data in the system, you will have no control over the information about your health. The law that says so has already been passed.
.
I also cannot help but fear that such a sea change in our society will further add to the culture of irresponsibility and dependence. The more we expect our governments to do, and the more personal power we cede to any government in exchange for its help, the more we admit that we are less than capable of caring for ourselves. Paine correctly asserted that governments always reflect the weaknesses of men because they define what men ought to do for themselves but cannot. It’s time to get the fork out.

Mr. Scott;
STOP FAILING THE TURING TEST!!

stinky,
Logon to Ebay and buy a kloo

Hey Bill and all (sorry C Morris for the obvious error on my omision!), go check out the link www.showchair.com if you would like to do some more homework. It has been my pleasure posting with you guys. I'm sure I'll post a few rants from QC!!!

Scott's outrage over "the AIG scandal" is pretty funny considering the $10 million golden parachute he received when he left Columbia/HCA.

John W is right we cannot have the government making healthcare choices for us. That's what insurance companies and employers are for. I stand with him in deploring the "moral hazard" of getting quality healthcare to the children of the poor. It's their own fault the kid is sick. If they were just better people, they'd be healthy. He's right, we will only value healthcrae when it is denied to a great percentage of the population. Doctors are for the rich, That is the American way as John has pointed out. I'm sure he'd tell his children and grandchildren to suffer in silence if they lost their job and their health insurance. I'm sure he'd rather see them die than fall into any "moral hazard" He's a patriot, standing up for thet great american principle: every man for himself. We need to stop this outrage of helping people who can't help themselves. I. like John W, dream of the day when poor children die of curable diseases the way God intended. Won't you help us to make that dream come true?

Tell us John W, are Japan, the UK, France, Sweden, Canada and every other inmdustrialized nation on earth nations of free people?

Tom Paine, Health care expert:
.
You are right to say that we cannot have government making health care choices for us. You then sarcastically suggest “[t]hat's what insurance companies and employers are for.” That is wrong. Making health care choices is for the individual - and not a task for employers, insurance companies or governments. We are in a deplorable situation when we give our life choices over to any other individual or group of individuals.
.
You then falsely suggest that I deplore “the ‘moral hazard’ of getting quality healthcare to the children of the poor.” I said no such thing. These are words you have put in my mouth because this is what you view as the natural consequence of not giving the federal government free reign in the field of health care. You have been sold on the idea that anything short of federal control over the health care system will perpetrate the shortcomings of the present system. That of course is false. The false premise underlying this wrong-headed idea of YOURS is that there are no alternatives.
.
There are potentially many alternatives. No one, however, cares to explore or even discuss them before investing the federal government - i.e. the most ineffective, wasteful and expensive government on the planet - with control over the health care system. We have fifty (50) state governments and a handful of territorial governments. There is no reason they couldn’t take steps to alter and improve the overall health care system, or to do so in a manner that preserves an individual’s privacy and autonomy. What keeps state governments from getting involved, however, is the fact the federal government (i.e. the 900 pound gorilla in the room) is poised to occupy the health care field to a degree that would leave no place for them to get involved without the risk of engaging in wasteful, duplicate government.
.
There are, likewise, many areas of control over the economy that the federal government could occupy - short of control over the entire medical industry - that would make it cost effective for most people to obtain health care, and to allow the states to provide health care coverage in a cost-effective manner to children and the poor. The federal government, for instance, could regulate the price and flow of drugs and other medical supplies. These are currently very expensive components of the health care system. The federal government could likewise exercise some control over the greatest expense to the medical profession - malpractice insurance. Indeed, there are no effective controls right now over insurance at all - even though much of the insurance industry operates in multi-state areas. As of now, there are no uniform controls over these things. It is the place of the federal government to control many of the economic factors that have made health care costs so high. But, we don’t have to have the federal government doing the job its supposed to, do we?
.
No, we are not going to examine any of the possible alternatives because the national mind-set is in favor of giving the federal government more and more power. People like you want a nanny state, in which case there is no need to seek after more cost effective alternatives. You don’t care if the federal government is inefficient, wasteful or corrupt. You just want what you want - and you are willing to lie and distort the truth to get your way.

* * * * *
Posted by: Kendle | April 3, 2009 11:59 AM
.
The answer depends entirely on what you mean by “free.” Some believe freedom means the absence of want. In that sense, the people of many of the countries you have listed are free. If, however, the definition of freedom consists of the ability to think and act freely unhindered by needless coercion, then the people in many of these countries are not free. The founding fathers always used the latter definition, as the former would have been entirely foreign to them.
.
If you want to know if those people are free, go ask them. Go ask Swedes what they think of their government’s practice of wiretapping any phone traffic that crosses their national boundaries. Go ask the Japanese and the French about how it feels to get thrown in jail for exercising their rights to freedom of speech.
.
And, of course, if these people have surrendered their choices over personal health, privacy and autonomy over to their governments, then they are most definitely not free. Tell me how it could be otherwise.

Thanks John W for informing us that the US is the ONLY free industrialized country. No hyperbole or hypernationalism there.

Incidently, have you heard about another country that asserted their right to tap all phone conversation that crossed their borders without warrant? I'll give you a hint. First letter U. Last Letter A. Middle Letter S. And to think that happened without the horror of full access to health care to crush the rights of the people first.

Have a good weekend John. Don't let the Red Commie Marxists get you in your sleep! Your vigilence is the only thing keeping this country from turning into a horrific freedomless police state like Canada or Britain.

Kendle:
.
1. I never said we were the only free industrialized country. Freedom comes in degrees. I would suggest that Americans are, in many respects, a lot freer than the people of many of the other countries you mentioned. The difference between the U.S. and Sweden over wire tapping, for instance, lies in the fact that the U.S. government still considers that practice illegal (and even unconstitutional) without some justification for it. The fact that it was done illegally by the former administration didn’t make it legal or proper. The Swedish government, in contrast, unashamedly asserts the right to wiretap without any justification.
.
2. Of course, you entirely dodged discussion of the rest of what I had to say. You do not deny, for instance, that many of the people in these other countries you mentioned enjoy fewer civil liberties. You can speak freely about all you like and as long as you like, unless you happen to step on the toes of the government. People have been jailed in France and Japan for speaking against the government. It is a crime in much of continental Europe to deny the Holocaust. In France, a commercial operation can even get fined for using foreign words. They not only have the thought police, they have the grammar police too. And what about all those poor Muslim children in France who can’t dress like Muslims when they go to school? None of those restrictions would be tolerated for very long in this country. The certainly haven’t been. And you are going to pretend the people in these countries are just as free as we are? Are you mad or just being dishonest?
.
Furthermore (and I know you hate this subject), the people in many of the countries you mentioned are taxed at a substantially higher rate than we are in order to pay for all the nanny state programs and what has become for them (in many instances) disastrous health care systems. Common sense would dictate that when you take away a person’s money, and you have largely taken away their ability to act freely in their own behalf. A person who hasn’t had their brains half kicked out or baked by the pseduo-liberal education system and media would know this.
.
And you still haven’t answered my question with regard to how people could possibly be defined as free when they have turned the most important decisions about their very lives over to a bunch of bureaucrats. The five basic rights of every person under the common law (not including auxiliary rights), are: Life, Limb, Liberty, Property and Reputation. It should be obvious to anyone with half a brain that the last three rights (Liberty, Property, and Reputation) cannot be exercised without preserving the first two (Life and Limb). Decisions about health care are entirely determinative of the duration and quality of these first two rights. Thus, being forced to compromise with the government over making health care choices makes a person substantially less free.
.
If you could find a way to have government controlled health care which preserves the rights of individuals to personal privacy and autonomy, I wouldn’t think so poorly of the idea. However, as anyone who has ever watched the federal government in action for any length of time will tell you, the federal government cannot be trusted to stay within its defined barriers. The passage of time of even one generation has witnessed the federal government reneging on many such limits. To bureaucrats and even those in Congress, expediency is often more important than individual rights. That’s because those people are far more concerned with doing things quickly and easily than properly, and governing is neither quick nor easy if one must still respect people’s rights.