Harry Reid’s Medicare Corruption Exposed

Ron exposes the $700,000 donated to Harry Reid by a doctor who received the largest Medicare reimbursement in 2012. Also, removing HHS Sec. Kathleen Sebelius will do nothing to cure a deeply flawed and fraudulent government run healthcare system.

Source Ron Paul
Sorry, can't embed that video here.

Ugh screwed that one up good. Doctor paid 700,000 to superpac of Reid, same doctor recieved 21 million in medicare reimbursements. The superpac used that money to elect Menendez, a buddy of the doctor. On and on and on...... It never stops really.

reply to post by TKDRL

If we only knew the depths of his sliminess.

reply to post by butcherguy


Sad thing is, I hardly consider him an anomaly in DC. Backroom deals and all that are the norm, they spend more time in the backrooms, than on the floor. Makes me sick.

I would have typed more in the OP about the video, but my damn internet connection is being flakey, making me unable to rewatch the video

TKDRL

Ron exposes the $700,000 donated to Harry Reid by a doctor who received the largest Medicare reimbursement in 2012. Also, removing HHS Sec. Kathleen Sebelius will do nothing to cure a deeply flawed and fraudulent government run healthcare system.

Source Ron Paul
Sorry, can't embed that video here.

Ugh screwed that one up good. Doctor paid 700,000 to superpac of Reid, same doctor recieved 21 million in medicare reimbursements. The superpac used that money to elect Menendez, a buddy of the doctor. On and on and on...... It never stops really.

edit on Thu, 17 Apr 2014 08:23:13 -0500 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)

I can't decide who is worse, Harry Reid or Ron Paul. Yesterday's story was about how Ron Paul's Campaign for Liberty won't comply with the IRS requirement to provide them with a list of donors, ostensibly because it might get leaked to liberals and the very next day it's Ron Paul exposing the donors for a Democrat's PAC.

Seems to me that not only should we limit the size of contributions to any group involved in politics but that the list of donors who donate more than say $250 (or $500, $1000, whatever amount is determined most reasonable) should always be public knowledge.

reply to post by TKDRL

Sad thing is, I hardly consider him an anomaly in DC. Backroom deals and all that are the norm, they spend more time in the backrooms, than on the floor

Definitely!
But the higher up the ladder they go, the slimier they are.

reply to post by theantediluvian


maybe ron pauls refusal has to do with the recent exposure of the targeting of people the government doesn't like by the IRS

also maybe you didn't notice the news of the day before yesterday about how corporations can now donate unlimited frees peech to their stooge of choice...?

TKDRL

Ron exposes the $700,000 donated to Harry Reid by a doctor who received the largest Medicare reimbursement in 2012. Also, removing HHS Sec. Kathleen Sebelius will do nothing to cure a deeply flawed and fraudulent government run healthcare system.

Source Ron Paul
Sorry, can't embed that video here.

Ugh screwed that one up good. Doctor paid 700,000 to superpac of Reid, same doctor recieved 21 million in medicare reimbursements. The superpac used that money to elect Menendez, a buddy of the doctor. On and on and on...... It never stops really.

edit on Thu, 17 Apr 2014 08:23:13 -0500 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)

This does nothing to prove that the doctor broke any laws or used Harry Reid to get favors. Medicare is administered by a private third party... I professionally bill Medicare and you are required to provide documentation upon request or face an audit. This doctor would literally have to invent tens of thousands of patients to do something like this. The third party administrator would have to be in lock step collusion. I think the inferred claim is a hoax.

Danbones
reply to post by theantediluvian

 

maybe ron pauls refusal has to do with the recent exposure of the targeting of people the government doesn't like by the IRS

also maybe you didn't notice the news of the day before yesterday about how corporations can now donate unlimited frees peech to their stooge of choice...?

edit on Thuam4b20144America/Chicago23 by Danbones because: (no reason given)

Or maybe Ron Paul is just another scum bag politician but you're eager to give him a pass because you like what he says?

"The IRS technically requires donor information from 501(c)(4) organizations and is forbidden by law from releasing it to the public, yet despite this they have 'mistakenly' released the information repeatedly over the years," Stiles added to Examiner reporter Joel Gehrke on Tuesday. "Often these leaks have been made to political opponents of the conservative groups whose information was leaked. Leaking the donor information is intended to harass and to intimidate those donors from donating to political causes. Campaign for Liberty has refused to provide donor information to the IRS to protect the privacy of our members. Now the IRS has demanded the information and fined Campaign for Liberty for protecting its members’ privacy."

So again, Ron Paul decides when a group's donors are relevant? Maybe he just wants to avoid more bad press over receiving donations from white supremacy groups?

Paul's no stranger to this kind of uncomfortable love. And he hasn't always spurned it. In 2007, he kept a donation from Don Black, Stormfront's founder and a former Klu Klux Klan grandmaster who was convicted of trying to overthrow the Dominican government back in 1981. Black endorsed Paul for Congress, and the Stormfronters have been on board with the Paul campaign ever since. The same year, he told PBS's Now that he didn't want white supremacists' support, but that their donations "were a good thing because I got their money away from them." But he was also photographed with a man widely reported to be Don Black in 2007.

source

Are you aware that the FEC is investigating the Ron Paul 2012 campaign for attempting to bribe an Iowa state senator to switch his endorsement from Michele Bachmann to Ron Paul?

According to Sorenson, who resigned from the state senate last fall, Paul's deputy campaign manager Dimitri Kesari gave him a $25,000 check, written in the name of a jewelry shop owned by Kesari's wife. Sorenson denied have deposited the check. In addition, speaking to the ethics investigator in Iowa under oath, Sorenson acknowledged receiving money for political work that he could not describe in detail from a film company in Maryland; the Iowa ethics investigation found the payments "deeply suspicious." Kesari, his wife and several individuals tied to the Maryland company are all named in Waldron's new complaint to the FEC.

Also named in the complaint as knowing about the plan was Jesse Benton, Ron Paul's campaign manager and grandson-in-law. Benton is currently the campaign manager for Senate Majority Leader McConnell and there has been talk he might join a Rand Paul presidential campaign.

source

Ironically, Michele Bachmann's campaign is already under investigation for allegedly paying Sorenson for his endorsement.

reply to post by theantediluvian

So again, Ron Paul decides when a group's donors are relevant? Maybe he just wants to avoid more bad press over receiving donations from white supremacy groups?

Too bad there is a supreme court precedent that stated

The action of the state's obtaining the names of the Association's membership would likely interfere with the free association of its members, so the state's interest in obtaining the records was superseded by the constitutional rights of the petitioners.

IRS is just busting their balls to bust Rand's balls more than likely. Or they are just targeting conservative groups again. They tried to get the list in 2012 and was denied as well, using the same court case they are going to cite again.

Are you aware that the FEC is investigating the Ron Paul 2012 campaign for attempting to bribe an Iowa state senator to switch his endorsement from Michele Bachmann to Ron Paul?

Are you aware that not even the ones that say Ron Paul's guy paid him think Ron Paul even knew about it?

Fusaro: Have you, I don’t presume you have been paid by them [the Paul campaign – other than the initial check from Kesari]. Sounds to me like you are not going to be working with them after this. I’m confused. I mean, if you are not doing his bidding, he’s not going to pay you.

Sorenson: No, I agree with you.

Fusaro: I understand that Ron Paul came out and said that nobody gave you… The lying that’s going on is just incredible. It’s one thing to be smart politically and tough, but now you have Ron Paul out there lying.

Sorenson: You think he knows?

Fusaro: No, actually, I think he doesn’t.

Source

reply to post by spurgeonatorsrevenge


You do have a right to your opinion. For the record you are not denying the doctor received 21 million in reimbursements right?

reply to post by TKDRL


The same Supreme Court that decided that corporations are people too and thanks their Citizen's United ruling have opened the floodgates, further corrupting the American election process? You might remember this as it's what lead to the exponential increase in largely corporate funded non-profits. I suppose you don't see the link? Do you believe that post Citizen's United, regular folk just dug exponentially deeper into their pockets to fund all these groups?

Of course Ron Paul was unaware, just like he was unaware of bigotry-filled articles in his newsletters, just like Rand Paul was unaware of his plagiarism.. blah blah blah. I'm sure Harry Reid was equally "unaware." Can you or Ron Paul prove otherwise?

Let's set all of that aside for a minute. Can you explain how one can reconcile a professed deeply held ideological belief in protecting the identity and contributions of donors to political groups and campaigns and then subsequently publish this information for somebody else's donors?

reply to post by theantediluvian


I think you are confused. NY Times published it, not Ron Paul. I am sure C4L would hand over the list, if the IRS wasn't constantly leaking them lists, which are supposed to remain confidential.

Reid has been caught with his hand in the cookie jar multiple times, can't say the same about Ron Paul.

TKDRL
reply to post by theantediluvian

 

I think you are confused. NY Times published it, not Ron Paul. I am sure C4L would hand over the list, if the IRS wasn't constantly leaking them lists, which are supposed to remain confidential.

Reid has been caught with his hand in the cookie jar multiple times, can't say the same about Ron Paul.

edit on Thu, 17 Apr 2014 10:54:37 -0500 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)

I see. So because he's reading what somebody else published, he's not actually violating his own principles even though he's in effect publishing the exact same content on his own "Ron Paul Channel" to support his view? Tricky! Kind of like getting somebody else to ghost write everything for you so that you can later throw up your hands and say, "but wait! it wasn't ME!"

BTW! If you take offense to anything I'm saying, please know that the content of this post could have in fact been generated by somebody else and I will happily disavow it at a later date if need be.

reply to post by theantediluvian


Oh right, because no one ever does commentary videos on news pieces they find relevant right? Where is the laughing emoticon when you need it.

Dirty Harry seems to be under attack from his peers. It seems they want or need him gone to further their own agenda.

reply to post by Skorpy


I think it's more like they see how pissed the public is at the old jerk, and decide it's better to toss him under the bus to retire than stand with him. Stick a fork in him, he is done. The rest of them think this will appease everyone, and they will be safe. They are sorely mistaken.

I believe this doctor is one of a small minority receiving a lot of medicare money, or the 3% who earn one quarter of $4 billion in medicare payouts.

I heard about this on NPR the other day. You could feel the seething anger under the AMA reps breath as she tried to spin the outing of this information as good. The watchdog rep sounded gleeful.

This is where obamacare gets ugly for the doctors, redistribution of wealth indeed. Guaranteed these doctors will be investigated for taking all this money. See, if the eye doctors need a lot of medicare money to pay for the drugs thats fine, as long as the money doesn't end up in their bank account. Because if the drug is expensive, that money should instead make its way to the drug manufacturer, and administering the drug shouldn't be all that expensive. Instead, these guys are jacking up the price for their service and taking home all the cash. What a scam! And the AMA has been running cover for these thieves all these years. No wonder why they don't want you and I to see these numbers. Unreal!

www.nytimes.com...

reply to post by TKDRL


lets all get together and come up with 700,000 and then pay off some Senator. we can get 21 million back..

Sounds like the BEST investment decision ever, ill sell everything I have, wear rags of I need to.

Just wow!

it is beyond time to take this country back from the "leaders"

reply to post by theantediluvian

Or maybe Ron Paul is just another scum bag politician but you're eager to give him a pass because you like what he says? -

See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...

his track record voting wise and your lack of comment on the specfics i just mentioned, makes your comment completely moot

TKDRL
reply to post by spurgeonatorsrevenge

 

You do have a right to your opinion. For the record you are not denying the doctor received 21 million in reimbursements right?

edit on Thu, 17 Apr 2014 10:22:47 -0500 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)

Well what I stated about Medicare is not an opinion, it is based upon expertise. Medicare is a third party administrator that is run by private individuals, please advise us how this Dr. and Harry Reed falsified the necessary paper work and database?

If you are unable to explain this, then you are basing your conclusion on a opinion.

And I have no idea about the Dr. business, it could be that he has many clinics and runs a managed care organization. If the man has doctors under contract it is very possible that this Dr. was able to accrue that much reimbursement from Medicare.