NORTON META TAG

Showing posts with label mitt robme romney. Show all posts
Showing posts with label mitt robme romney. Show all posts

14 December 2012

Says Mitt Romney "was director of a company that stole millions from Medicare." 31OKT12

JUST a reminder of the kind of leadership the repiglican / tea-bagger romney-ryan cabal would have brought to the nation. From PolitiFact.....

Says Mitt Romney "was director of a company that stole millions from Medicare."

Priorities USA Action on Wednesday, October 31st, 2012 in a campaign ad

Mitt Romney and Rick Scott both have Medicare fraud in their background, super PAC ad claims

The super PAC supporting President Barack Obama made a final pitch to Florida voters before Election Day: a TV ad comparing Republican nominee Mitt Romney and Gov. Rick Scott.

Showing a picture of the two men locked in a handshake, the ad urges viewers to "connect the dots."

"Scott ran a company that paid a record fine for committing Medicare fraud, then as governor Scott cut millions from health care," a narrator says. "Romney was director of a company that stole millions from Medicare. Now Romney’s plan would end Medicare as we know it.

"We’ve seen this picture before. Just connect the dots: If Mitt Romney wins, the middle class loses."

PolitiFact has investigated claims against both Scott and Romney about Medicare fraud during their business careers. Here’s a look at what we found.

‘Scott ran a company that paid a record fine for committing Medicare fraud’

In the spring of 1987, Scott purchased two Texas hospitals to start a company first known as Columbia. He quickly grew the company by purchasing more hospitals to create a large and profitable network.

In 1994, Columbia purchased Tennessee-headquartered HCA and its 100 hospitals, and merged the companies. Columbia/HCA grew to more than 340 hospitals, 135 surgery centers and 550 home health locations, employing more than 285,000 people.

Scott resigned as chief executive officer in 1997, the year that federal agents went public with an investigation into the company, first seizing records from four El Paso-area hospitals and then expanding across the country.

In time, it became apparent that the investigation focused on whether Columbia/HCA bilked Medicare and Medicaid for tests that were not necessary or ordered by physicians, and for attaching false diagnosis codes to patient records to increase reimbursement to the hospitals.

Scott resigned as CEO in July, less than four months after the inquiry became public. Company executives said that if Scott had remained CEO, the entire chain could have been in jeopardy. At issue, Scott said, was that he wanted to fight the federal government accusations. The corporate board of the publicly traded company wanted to settle.

And settle Columbia/HCA did.

In December 2000, the U.S. Justice Department announced what it called the largest government fraud settlement in U.S. history when Columbia/HCA agreed to pay $840 million in criminal fines and civil damages and penalties. Among the revelations from the 2000 settlement, which all apply to when Scott was CEO, were that Columbia overbilled Medicare for unnecessary tests and false diagnosis codes.

The government settled a second series of similar claims with Columbia/HCA in 2002 for an additional $881 million. The total fine: $1.7 billion.

As part of the 2000 settlement, Columbia/HCA agreed to plead guilty to at least 14 corporate felonies. A corporate felony comes with financial penalties but not jail time, since a corporation can’t be sent to prison. Scott himself was never indicted.

‘Romney was director of a company that stole millions from Medicare’

Romney’s record at Bain Capital, the private equity firm he founded, came up frequently during the Republican primary. This claim refers to Bain’s history with a company charged with Medicare fraud in the 1990s.
  
The Boston media investigated the facts of the case when Romney ran for governor in 2002. It’s also addressed in The Real Romney, a biography by reporters with the Boston Globe.
  
The story begins in 1989, when Romney was the head of Bain Capital, which specialized in buying troubled companies, turning them around, and then selling them for a profit. That year, Bain invested in Damon Corp., a medical testing company based in Needham, Mass.
  
Bain took the company public in 1991, and Romney served on the company’s board of directors. In 1993, Bain orchestrated a sale of the company to Corning Inc., getting a handsome return on its investment and earning Romney himself $473,000, according to The Real Romney. After the sale, Corning closed the main facility in Needham, laying off 115 people.
  
In October 1996, federal prosecutors announced that Damon was agreeing to pay $119 million in both civil and criminal fines after pleading guilty to defrauding Medicare. The company was providing doctors with forms that didn’t make clear what tests included, so doctors were checking off additional tests that weren’t necessary, according to the Globe’s summary of the government’s case.
  
The overbilling went from 1988 through 1993, prosecutors said. "This is a case, pure and simple, of corporate greed run amok," U.S. Attorney Donald Stern said when the settlement was announced.

Romney was never implicated in the case. He claimed that he helped uncover the fraud, but Globe reporting put that claim into question. The Globe reported that court records showed fraudulent activity occurred under Bain’s watch, and that prosecutors gave the credit to Corning for stopping the fraud.
The Romney campaign, though, pointed us to Globe stories noting that Bain officials began investigating the billing practices when a competitor lab pleaded guilty to the same type of fraud. The campaign also emphasized that Bain was never a majority owner in Damon -- its ownership share peaked at 8 percent and was just 2.8 percent went the company sold to Corning.

Are Romney and Scott’s cases similar?

By telling viewers to "connect the dots" between Romney and Scott, the Priorities ad implies that the Medicare fraud cases in their pasts are parallel. But in some important ways, the cases are different.

Scott was the top boss at Columbia/HCA during the years prosecutors found fraudulent activity, and his role as the face of the company is undisputed.

Romney’s position at Damon Corp. is a different story. As a member of the board of directors, Romney had a part in overseeing the company’s general direction. That’s not like being the CEO, who directs day-to-day activities.

The ad muddies that fact -- and it’s misleading to say Romney served as "director" of Damon Corp., not "a director."

Also, Columbia/HCA faced much larger fines and penalties than Damon did -- $1.7 billion versus $119 million.

Our ruling

The Priorities ad says Romney "was director of a company that stole millions from Medicare," comparing him with Scott.

Scott’s hospital company, Columbia/HCA, pleaded guilty to criminal charges and paid a total of $1.7 billion in fines related to Medicare fraud. Even though Scott had resigned by the time the case settled, prosecutors said the widespread fraud occurred while he was at the helm.

But the fraud case at Damon Corp. doesn’t point straight to Romney. His firm bought the company that was later found guilty of fraud, but Romney was not running the show while crimes were being committed.

The statement is accurate but needs additional information. That fits our definition of Mostly True.
About this statement:
Published: Friday, November 2nd, 2012 at 5:26 p.m.
Subjects: Medicare
Sources:
Priorities USA Action, "Connect the Dots," Oct. 31, 2012

PolitiFact Florida, "Was Mitt Romney the director of a company charged with Medicare fraud? AFSCME ad says so," Jan. 23, 2012
PolitiFact Georgia, "Was Super PAC right on Romney claim?" Feb. 21, 2012
PolitiFact Florida, "With Rick Scott leading in polls, opponents pull out 'fraud' line," June 10, 2010
AFSCME, "Greed" ad, Jan. 19, 2012
  
The Real Romney, by Michael Kranish and Scott Helman, 2011
  
United States District Court, District of Massachusetts (Boston), USA v. Damon Clinical Labs, Oct. 9, 1996
  
Boston Globe, Reaping profit in study, sweat, June 26, 2007
  
Boston Globe, Romney-aided deal closed Damon plant, Oct. 9, 1994
  
Boston Globe, Needham lab fined $ 119m for fraud, Oct. 10, 1996
  
Boston Globe, Romney profited on firm later tied to fraud, Oct. 10, 2002

St. Petersburg Times, Rivals pounce on Quinnipiac poll results, June 10, 2010

Alex Sink campaign, Rick Scott can't talk about accountability, May 18, 2010

Alex Sink campaign, e-mail interview with Kyra Jennings, May 18, 2010

Bill McCollum campaign, A Fraud Florida Can't Afford, May 18, 2010

Rick Scott campaign, FAQs, accessed May 19, 2010

Miami Herald, Columbia/HCA downplays probe at annual meeting, Scott defends company's record, May 16, 1997, accessed via Nexis

Modern Healthcare, Federal agents strike at Columbia's Roots, March 24, 1997, accessed via Nexis

Modern Healthcare, Columbia's storm builds: Company honchos try to calm workers as troubles swirl, April 07, 1997, accessed via Nexis

Modern Healthcare, Columbia probe widens: Federal raid in 7 states targets lab, home-care records, July 21, 1997, accessed via Nexis

USA TODAY, Columbia's new caretaker Physician heal thy firm: Tall task ahead of CEO, July 28, 1997, accessed via Nexis

St. Petersburg Times, Top Columbia / HCA officials quit, July 26, 1997, accessed via Nexis

New York Times, HCA Is Said To Reach Deal On Settlement Of Fraud Case, Dec. 18, 2002, accessed via Nexis

U.S. Justice Department, HCA to pay $840 million in criminal fines and civil damages, Dec. 14, 2000

U.S. Justice Department, Press statement RE: HCA, Dec. 18, 2002
The Tennessean, Investors yawn over settlement, Dec. 15, 2000, accessed via Nexis

Interview with HCA attorney Walter P. Loughlin, May 20, 2010

Rick Scott campaign, interview with Jennifer Baker, May 20, 2010

Fortune, What is Rick Scott trying to heal, April 27, 2009, accessed via Nexis

ABC news, World News Tonight transcript, Aug. 18, 1997, accessed via Nexis

Bill McCollum campaign, interview with Kristy Campbell, May 21, 2010

St. Petersburg Times, Rick Scott's coffers and scoffers, May 7, 2010

PolitiFact Georgia, "Was Super PAC right on Romney claim?" Jan. 27, 2012
Boston Globe, "Romney-Aided Deal Closed Damon Plant," Oct. 9, 1994, via Nexis
Boston Globe, "Romney Profited On Firm Later Tied To Fraud," Oct. 10, 2002
Email interview with Matt McDonald, Romney campaign, Nov. 2, 2012
Email interview with Brennan Bilberry, Priorities USA Action, Nov. 2, 2012
Written by: Molly Moorhead
Researched by: Angie Drobnic Holan, Aaron Sharockman
Edited by: Angie Drobnic Holanhttp://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/nov/02/priorities-usa-action/mitt-romney-and-rick-scott-both-have-medicare-frau/

01 November 2012

CLOCKS IN HEAVEN, SOME HUMOR TO BRIGHTEN YOUR DAY...

A man died and went to heaven. As he stood in front of St. Peter at the Pearly Gates, he saw a huge wall of clocks behind him. He asked, “What are all those clocks? St. Peter answered, ”those are Lie-Clocks” , everyone on earth has a Lie-Clock. Every time you lie the hands on your clock will move”.

“Oh” said the man, “whose clock is that?”; “That’s Mother Teresa’s. The hands have never moved, indicating that she never told a lie.”; Incredible, said the man.

“And whose clock is that one?”; St. Peter responded, “That’s Abraham Lincoln’s clock. The hands have moved twice, telling us that Abe told only two lies in his entire life.”;

“Where’s Mitt Romney’s clock?” asked the man. “Mitt Romney’s clock is in Jesus’ office. He’s using it as a ceiling fan”.

11 October 2012

2012 Electoral Map Forecast & 2008 Presidential Election Actual results and forecast 11OKT12

HERE is the 2012 Electoral prediction map and an interesting analysis of the 2008 presidential election year polls and results, with maps, from Intrade......

Updated October 11, 2012

The map below is based on data from the Intrade prediction market, where individuals place wagers on the outcome of the 2012 Presidential election in each state. The darker the shade of blue or red, the more likely that the Democrat or Republican will carry the state. Wagering is on party victory, but the nominees are Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. Hover over any state for details.

ROMNEY 235

OBAMA 303 ✓

TOSSUP 0

http://electoralmap.net/2012/intrade.php 

2008 Electoral Map - Election Results

Shown immediately below is the electoral map depicting the results of the 2008 presidential election in which Barack Obama won with 365 electoral votes to John McCain's 173. Below, the Intrade results are shown. Further down you will find the 2008 pollster report card.
2008 Electoral Map Obama  365
McCain 173

2008 Electoral Map - Intrade Forecast

Shown immediately below is the Nov 4, 2008 election day forecast from the Intrade prediction market. Intrade did not predict Nebraska splitting its votes, and it was the first time in state history that this happened. Missouri and Indiana were also reversed in the forecast, but both having eleven electoral votes resulted in a nearly dead-on electoral vote count.
2008 Electoral Map Intrade Forecast Obama  364
McCain 174


2008 Pollster Report Card

The table below is an assessment of pollster performance in the 2008 Presidential election.  The pollsters were graded on both the accuracy of their final poll (popular vote) and the consistency of their polling during the month of October.
The overall score is a weighted average of their Accuracy and Consistency numbers.  The weighting is 75% accuracy and 25% consistency.  Formula details are at the bottom of this page.
Overall
Poll Score Grade Accuracy Consistency
Rasmussen Reports 91% A- 92% 86%
Ipsos/McClatchy 89% B+ 92% 79%
CNN/Opinion Research 88% B+ 92% 77%
Fox News 84% B 92% 61%
Pew 83% B- 92% 56%
GWU/Battleground 79% C+ 92% 41%
Diageo/Hotline 77% C+ 77% 79%
NBC News / Wall St. Journal 76% C 77% 75%
Gallup Traditional 73% C- 77% 63%
Marist 67% D+ 62% 82%
ABC News / Wash Post 67% D+ 62% 82%
IBD/TIPP 66% D 77% 34%
Gallup Expanded 66% D 62% 78%
CBS News / NYT 60% D- 62% 56%
Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby 35% F 31% 48%
Data
The data for this chart come from the  Real Clear Politics summary on 12 November 2008.   Here is a local mirror of that data, with the final polls summarized at the top.  Here is a quick summary of the final spread predicted by the pollsters, ranked from most accurate to least:
Poll Obama McCain Spread (actual=6.5) Off by
Rasmussen Reports 52 46 6 0.5
Pew 52 46 6 0.5
GWU/Battleground 50 44 6 0.5
Ipsos/McClatchy 53 46 7 0.5
CNN/Opinion Research 53 46 7 0.5
Fox News 50 43 7 0.5
Diageo/Hotline 50 45 5 1.5
NBC News / Wall St. Journal 51 43 8 1.5
Gallup Traditional 51 43 8 1.5
IBD/TIPP 52 44 8 1.5
Marist 52 43 9 2.5
ABC News / Wash Post 53 44 9 2.5
Gallup Expanded 52 43 9 2.5
CBS News / NYT 51 42 9 2.5
Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby 54 43 11 4.5

Formulas
Every final poll showed Obama with a lead, so assessing their accuracy is just a matter of comparing their forecasted spread with the actual spread of the election which was Obama +6.5.  
Final poll accuracy score =  100 -  (  |(POLL SPREAD - 6.5)| / 6.5  )
All the pollsters graded had more than one poll during the month of October.  If a poll reported a wide spread and then suddenly narrowed down right before the election, this formula produces a lower score.  Likewise a pollster gets a lower score if they predicted a very tight race until the end and then widened up.
October Consistency = 100 - ( POLL STDEV / POLL AVERAGE )
 http://electoralmap.net/2012/2008_election.php

09 October 2012

Oct. 8: A Great Poll for Romney, in Perspective 8OKT12

PUTTING the polls in perspective after the debate from Five Thirty Eight. We can not become discouraged over the romney "wave" because President Obama is still leading in swing states and across the country and WE WILL WIN THIS ELECTION! 
Mitt Romney gained further ground in the FiveThirtyEight forecast on Monday, with his chances of winning the Electoral College increasing to 25.2 percent from 21.6 percent on Sunday.
The change represents a continuation of the recent trend: Mr. Romney’s chances were down to just 13.9 percent immediately in advance of last week’s debate in Denver. He has nearly doubled his chances since then.
But the gains that he made on Monday in particular were all because of a single poll.
We’ll talk about that poll — a Pew Research poll that gave Mr. Romney a 4-point lead among likely voters — in a moment. But let’s first consider the day’s worth of polling without it, which was pretty mixed for Mr. Romney.

The most unfavorable numbers for Mr. Romney came in the national tracking polls published by Gallup and Rasmussen Reports. Both showed the race trending slightly toward President Obama, who increased his lead from 3 points to 5 points in the Gallup poll, and pulled into a tie after having trailed by 2 points in the Rasmussen survey.
In both cases, the numbers looked more like pre-debate data than the stronger numbers that Mr. Romney has been receiving since then. On average between the Democratic convention and the debate, the Rasmussen poll showed Mr. Obama with a 0.7-point lead (the Rasmussen poll is Republican-leaning relative to the consensus), while the Gallup poll had Mr. Obama ahead by an average of 3.4 points.
A third national tracking poll, an online tracking poll published by the RAND Corporation, showed essentially no change from Sunday. All of this seemed to be consistent with a story in which Mr. Romney’s debate bounce was receding some. (A fourth tracking poll, from Ipsos, had not been published as of the time we ran our forecast on Monday.)
The swing state polls published on Monday might best be described as being OK for Mr. Obama. He led in polls of Colorado, Iowa, Pennsylvania and Virginia, and in two polls of Michigan. In all cases, Mr. Obama’s lead was small. However, this particular group of pollsters had shown reasonably unfavorable numbers for Mr. Obama in the same states before. Three of the polls actually moved toward Mr. Obama from the numbers that the same polling firms had published before the debates.
There are a few polls that I’ve left out of the discussion here — a George Washington University survey for Politico, for example, showed just a 1-point lead for Mr. Obama, even though most of its interviews were conducted before the debate. That was a strong poll for Mr. Romney.
But were it not for the Pew poll, our forecast would have been unchanged from Monday, with Mr. Romney’s chances holding at 21.6 percent.
The Pew poll, however, may well be the single best polling result that Mr. Romney has seen all year. It comes from a strong polling firm, and had a reasonably large sample size. Just as important is the trendline. Pew’s polls have been Democratic-leaning relative to the consensus this year; its last poll, for instance, had Mr. Obama 8 points ahead among likely voters. So this represents a very sharp reversal.
One line of complaint about the poll has come from Democrats, who noted that the poll showed more Republicans than Democrats in its sample — unlike most other recent surveys.
I feel the same way about this critique that I do when it comes from Republicans — which is to say I don’t think very much of it. As The Washington Post’s Jon Cohen notes, party identification is fluid rather than fixed, and can change in reaction to political and news events. If voters are feeling better about Mr. Romney after the debates, they might also be inclined to identify themselves to pollsters as Republicans.
It is probably also the case that Republicans won’t actually have a 5-point party identification advantage in the exit poll on Election Day. But it isn’t the pollster’s job to project what will happen on Nov. 6. (That’s my job, instead!) Rather, the pollster’s job is to take the most accurate snapshot of the electorate at the time the poll is conducted. Note that the Rasmussen Reports polls, which (improperly, in my view) adjust for party identification, show very little bounce for Mr. Romney. The party-identification adjustment is causing them to miss the story of the election — just as they were largely missing the story of Mr. Obama’s bounce following his convention.
There are two smarter questions to ask about the Pew poll. First, is it really likely that Mr. Romney leads the race by 4 points right now? The consensus of the evidence, particularly the national tracking polls, would suggest otherwise. Instead, the forecast model’s conclusion is that the whole of the data is still consistent with a very narrow lead for Mr. Obama, albeit one that is considerably diminished since Denver.
It might be granted that the situation is more ambiguous than usual right now. But our forecast model looks at literally all of the polls; it estimates Mr. Romney’s post-debate bounce as being 2.5 percentage points, not quite enough to erase Mr. Obama’s pre-debate advantage.
The other valid line of inquiry concerns the timing of the poll. The Pew poll was conducted from Thursday through Sunday, although more of the interviews were conducted in the earlier part of that period. There’s nothing in the poll that really refutes the story that Mr. Romney initially received a very large bounce after the debate (perhaps somewhere on the order of 4 or 5 points, if not quite as large as Pew shows it), which has since faded some between the news cycle turning over and the favorable jobs report on Friday.
The evidence that Mr. Romney’s bounce is receding some is only modestly strong — as opposed to the evidence that he got a significant bounce in the first place, which is very strong. Still, the order in which polls are published does not exactly match the order in which they were actually conducted — and at turning points in the race, these details can make a difference.
The last thing to consider is that the fundamentals of the race aren’t consistent with a 4-point lead for Mr. Romney. Instead, the most recent economic numbers, and Mr. Obama’s approval ratings, would seem to point to an election in which he is the slight favorite. We don’t use approval ratings in our forecast, but we do use the economic data, and both the monthly payrolls report and the broader FiveThirtyEight economic index would point toward an election in which Mr. Obama is favored in the popular vote by around 2.5 percentage points.
There is a fair amount of uncertainty in this calculation: models that claim to achieve exceptionally precise results based on economic data alone have not always lived up to their billing — so a forecast based on the economic index alone would have Mr. Obama as only a 60 or 65 percent favorite, hardly a sure thing. (In Mr. Obama’s case, much of the downside risk would come from the potential for a poor Democratic turnout.) And our forecast model weights the economic factors less and less as time goes on.
Still, the economic component of the model still has some influence on the model (it accounts for about 25 percent of the forecast for the time being). Just as the economic component was causing the model to adjust Mr. Obama’s numbers downward during the height of his convention bounce, the same consideration will help Mr. Obama slightly if he starts to see more results like the Pew poll.
This technique has produced a very stable forecast over the whole of the year: since we began to publish the model in the spring, the projected Nov. 6 result has varied only between a 1.6-point win for Mr. Obama in the national popular vote and a 4.3-point edge.
That’s not to say the model weights all the polls equally: high-quality national polls have an especially big influence on the trendlines that we estimate. Hence, Mr. Romney’s odds of winning the Electoral College increased by more than 3 percent on the basis of the Pew poll alone; I doubt that any other individual poll has had as much influence on the forecast.
But it’s one thing to give a poll a lot of weight, and another to become so enthralled with it that you dismiss all other evidence. If you can trust yourself to take the polls in stride, then I would encourage you to do so. If your impression of the race is changing radically every few minutes, however, then you’re best off looking at the forecasts and projections that we and our competitors publish, along with Vegas betting lines and prediction markets.
All of these methods have slightly different ways of accounting for new information, but they do involve people who are risking either money or reputation to get it right, and who have systematic ways to weigh the evidence rather than doing so on an ad hoc basis.
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/09/oct-8-a-great-poll-for-romney-in-perspective/