|U.S. SENATOR MARCO RUBIO SPEECH – 11/2/2010
|MARCO RUBIO CPAC ADDRESS – 2/18/2010
|MARCO RUBIO FAMOUS SPEECH – 2008
Farewell address to the Florida House of Representatives.
Posts Tagged ‘Independents’
Posted by FactReal on November 2, 2010
Posted by FactReal on November 2, 2010
|Election results via primary sources.|
|FLORIDA UNOFFICIAL ELECTION RESULTS |
FLORIDA ELECTION RESULTS via Florida Division of Elections
|MIAMI-DADE COUNTY UNOFFICIAL ELECTION RESULTS|
MIAMI ELECTION RESULTS via Miami-Dade County Elections Dept.
– Marco Rubio acceptance speech
|Allen West victory speech
|– FL-25: Democrat Joe Garcia concedes…CBS4 continues trashing David Rivera!!
– FL-AG: Republican Pam Bondi wins, will be Florida’s next attorney general
– Michelle Malkin is liveblogging the 2010 midterm results
Posted by FactReal on October 30, 2010
|THE CLINTON ADMIN. USED THE MEDICARE REGULATIONS TO GO AFTER THOSE OPPOSED TO HILLARYCARE
In the early 1990s, Rick Scott was one of the most vocal critics of Hillary Clinton’s health care plan (a.k.a. HillaryCare). Under Bill Clinton’s administration a myriad of ambiguous and complex Medicare regulations were created. Full compliance was not feasible. It was more a game of gotcha and revenue than of law enforcement. The government was criticized in the media for classifying simple mistakes as “fraud.” Dozens of prestigious health care institutions paid millions in fines, including Yale Hospital, Duke University Hospital, Harvard University Hospitals, University of Chicago Hospitals, Johns Hopkins, and industry giants Tenet and Columbia/HCA.
In 1998, then-congressman Bill McCollum defended health care providers like Columbia/HCA against the Clinton Administration’s witch hunt:
Here is a re-print of McCollum’s 1998 speech:
HON. BILL MCCOLLUM
in the House of Representatives
THURSDAY, MARCH 19, 1998
[Page: E434] GPO's PDF
Posted by FactReal on October 30, 2010
|Did you know?
– Rick Scott was never indicted or arrested. Simply, he was never charged with any crime.
– Prosecutors never attempted to depose Scott nor found evidence he was directly involved in the fraud:
Peter Chatfield, who spent seven years working on a Columbia-HCA civil case brought by two whistleblowers, said that deposing Scott was not a high priority for the case. “His e-mails were mostly motivational.” “After sifting through years of discovery documents, Chatfield said he never had a feel for whether Scott knew of any wrongdoing.”
– The convictions were tossed out for the only 2 individuals initially convicted of wrongdoing at Columbia/HCA.
– On 7/25/97, Rick Scott along with 2 other executives resigned.
– Rick Scott wanted to challenge how regulations are interpreted, but the board of directors wanted to settle: Scott “took the position that the courts ultimately did, which was that there could be honest disagreement over how the regulations were interpreted,” Scott campaign spokeswoman Jennifer Baker said.
– In 2000, three years after Scott left the company, HCA agreed to settle and pay $840 million in criminal fines and civil damages and penalties. In 2002, HCA agreed to pay an additional $881 million.
– The $1.7 billion fines in context: Columbia/HCA was the largest hospital company in the nation and world in 1997. Columbia/HCA operated 343 hospitals, so a $1.7 billion fine is equivalent to approx. $4.9 million per hospital.
– Whistleblowers were offered 25% of the settlement
– Janet Reno was the Attorney General (DOJ press release of Dec. 14, 2000)
– Did Scott take the 5th Amendment 75 times? Read here.
Rick Scott Fought Against HillaryCare in the 1990s
Clintons’ Witch Hunt: Simple mistakes became fraud
Clinton administration created a myriad of ambiguous Medicare regulations
Even the Courts agreed the Medicare regulations were ambiguous
Some of the charges were before Columbia/HCA acquire the hospitals
PRNewswire: Another example:
Bill McCollum Defended Rick Scott’s Company in the 1990s
Posted by FactReal on October 28, 2010
BALLOT TITLE: Referenda required for adoption and amendment of local government comprehensive land use plans.
FLORIDA TAXWATCH RECOMMENDS VOTING NO ON AMENDMENT 4
ANALYSIS: Amendment 4 would undoubtedly require additional elections. The state’s Financial Impact Estimating Conference (FIEC), which is required by law to develop an economic impact statement on amendments brought to the ballot by citizen initiative, says that how many elections would result is unknown but elections are expensive. […]
Amendment 4’s envisioned restructuring of property rights from private to public and the associated change in decision-making from the marketplace to the ballot box will likely have devastating, lasting effects on Florida’s economy, the taxpayers, and the treasuries of cities and counties throughout or state. Amendment 4, should it be enacted, will introduce a large and consistent bias against voter approval of new projects as has been demonstrated in similar situations. As a result, commercial and residential investments as well as business formations and expansions will diminish. Higher costs will emerge for approved commercial and residential investments as well as forming new businesses and expanding existing ones. Special interest groups might arise and be funded in attempts to convince a large number of people to vote for or against a given project. Funding special interest groups would further add to the cost of development. Moreover, permanent increases in the direct and indirect costs of elections will occur. Overall, the successful passage of Amendment 4 would be expensive for Florida taxpayers and could be devastating for Florida’s economy.
THE JAMES MADISON INSTITUTE RECOMMENDS VOTING NO ON AMENDMENT 4
ANALYSIS: Opponents say that Amendment 4 will cost jobs and hurt Florida’s economy by stifling growth, thereby costing taxpayers millions of dollars…Opponents also note that because of the large numbers of comprehensive plan amendments proposed in many jurisdictions during each election cycle, the presence on the ballot of scores of highly technical questions may exacerbate Election Day congestion at polling places. However, by far the most persuasive argument against Amendment 4 may be the experience of St. Petersburg Beach, where a local version this measure has been blamed for causing higher taxes, a loss of jobs, and endless litigation.
The evidence against Amendment 4 is overwhelming. Currently, more than 334 organizations, associations, and local governments, plus every daily newspaper in the state, have taken a position against this amendment…and for good reason. Because of the detrimental impacts this amendment would have on Florida’s economy and on citizens’ property rights…
|AMENDMENTS 5 AND 6
BALLOT TITLE: Standards for Legislature to follow in legislative and in congressional redistricting.
THE JAMES MADISON INSTITUTE RECOMMENDS VOTING NO ON AMENDMENTS 5 AND 6
ANALYSIS: Enactment of the confusing and contradictory standards mandated in Amendment 5 [and 6] would increase the likelihood that any redistricting plan devised by the Florida Legislature would be subject to protracted litigation and would ultimately be replaced by a plan devised by appointed judges rather than by the people’s elected representatives.
FLORIDA’S FINANCIAL IMPACT ESTIMATING CONFERENCE (FIEC) CAN’T DETERMINE THE COSTS
The Financial Impact Estimating Conference (FIEC) expects that the proposed amendment may result in increased costs: “The State may incur additional legal costs to litigate the redistricting plans developed under the proposed constitutional standards…For example, the requirement that every district be drawn so as not to favor or disfavor any incumbent or political party may spawn challenges…These legal costs are indeterminate.”
RADICAL LEFTISTS ARE BEHIND THE PROPONENTS OF AMENDMENTS 4, 5, 6…check the public records:
– Radical leftist George Soros, unions, and trial lawyers financing proponents of Amendments 5 and 6
– Big Democrat donor financing proponents of Amendment 4
Posted by FactReal on October 27, 2010
|Via Sunshine State News: “Sink was caught breaking the rules during the final gubernatorial debate Monday night. The next day she told national news media on live TV that she didn’t know who the message was from, but it was later discovered she was told it was from a staffer.”|
|First, Sink cheats
|Then, Sink lies about cheating during the debate
|CNN John King: “But we listened very closely to the audio, and the makeup artist, when she approached Alex Sink, said ‘I have a message from the staff.’ And at that point they looked, it was on a cell phone, it was two sentences. It was essentially [debate] advice after the last segment debate…”
It’s not that Alex Sink made a mistake, really: it’s that she lied about it afterward.