

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
The hospital CEO turned US senator is a fraud superstar at working the system.
When Rick Scott came to town, every one of us who worked at Columbia Hospital Corporation’s Victoria Hospital in Miami, Florida stood at attention. The young, dashing CEO had come to make sure staff bloat was reduced and profits were maximized. After leaving my position in Denver and moving my whole family to Florida just five months prior to being the hospital’s billing manager, I was just learning how to do my job within all the rules and regulations. And Rick Scott in our facility meant I needed to at least be pleasant to the big boss. And, indeed, I was.
As the day of Scott’s visit wore on, staff members who were about to be laid off just six weeks before the holiday season in 1989 were called to the admin offices via the hospital’s public announcement system. The extension named “3200” was the call to ride the elevator up several floors to be dismissed by the hospital CEO and his CFO. The day never left my memory as one during which good, kind, and dedicated colleagues, including the boss who brought me to the position, were riffed. On her way out the door, she reminded me to stay alert and be careful. I didn’t know what to do. I cried a lot that night at home, yet I didn’t know what was still to come in Scott’s new vision of profitability.
Within weeks, I noticed a change in our workflow. I was pushed hard to generate collection letters for all the Medicare patients who had been admitted to Columbia’s Victoria Hospital who had not paid their Medicare deductibles before discharge. But then I was instructed to put those generated collection letters in the patient files but never to mail them to the patients. That, I was told, would create a paper trail for due diligence in collection efforts as required before the hospital could submit to have those unpaid (and now unbilled) deductibles reimbursed by the federal Medicare program.
Filing letters in patient files without sending them out seemed wrong and it seemed fraudulent to me, and since I was new to it all I thought maybe if this was standard practice for the hospital, it could have been some loophole I didn’t know about. I dove into the Medicare rules, and I found this troubling line, “If you knew or should have known,” a certain action was fraud, you are complicit and could be charged with a crime. When I questioned the CFO about it, he snapped at me and said that if I wouldn’t do my job, I might need to rethink working there.
Universal coverage via improved and expanded Medicare for all of us would end Rick Scott’s grift.
In mid-December 1989, with my husband suffering heart problems and desperately in need of insurance coverage, I loaded all my personal items in a box and left the hospital. I quit my job. I wrote a letter to my former US Sen. Tim Wirth of Colorado about the situation, and I never heard directly back about what happened to that letter as I asked him to be cautious about disclosing my name or location. I was already terrified of these people. They collected hundreds of thousands of dollars quarterly from the scheme I was asked to be part of, and Rick Scott’s Columbia Hospital Corporation was building a portfolio that included an awful lot of hospitals. Scott was a rising star, after all, and making the first few hospitals he owned profitable was critical to keep that star on its trajectory.
After the Department of Justice started investigating Columbia’s hospitals in the mid to late 1990s, the hospital industry giant paid a record $1.7 billion settlement around defrauding the US government programs, Medicare, Medicaid, and TriCare. It turns out the schemes to enrich profits were widespread and involved much more than patient collection letters. Yet, even after Rick Scott was forced to resign and take responsibility for the fraud committed, he took a severance package of $10 million and stock options totaling nearly $300 million. Wow, that was a generous, golden, gilded, and glorious send off, eh? Up next for Scott?
To see this man ascend the political ranks to be thought of as an appropriate US Senate architect of a new health industry scheme to replace the Affordable Care Act-Obamacare subsidies is a tragic turn of events. We will not get anything close to a humane system under a Rick Scott plan.
The health industry is likely celebrating a return to laissez-faire, anything-goes-if-it’s-profitable model Rick Scott was an expert at designing and operating for Columbia Hospital Corporation. Patients will be the revenue stream upon which his fortune grows larger, and until we wake up and finally move to a model that puts patient health and well-being at the forefront of the design, we will see the health industry enrich itself beyond its wildest dreams while the architect of Medicare and Medicaid fraud, Sen. Rick Scott, takes yet another victory lap on taxpayer money. He and his health industry allies really love being on the dole, despite any claims to the contrary. They just call it profit.
Universal coverage via improved and expanded Medicare for all of us would end Rick Scott’s grift. Perhaps now the truth becomes even more clear. Ending the stranglehold of hospital corporations like the behemoth HCA Healthcare that also includes all of the hospitals previously owned by Columbia Hospital Corporation. On the corporate website, HCA Healthcare writes, “HCA Healthcare, Inc. owns and operates 186 hospitals and approximately 2,400 ambulatory sites of care, including surgery centers, free standing emergency rooms, urgent care centers, and physician clinics in 20 states and the United Kingdom.”
The profits are dear—not the patients, my friends.
Sen. Rick Scott is warning fellow Republicans of a "slow creep" toward single-payer healthcare if they don't craft an alternative to the Affordable Care Act.
US Sen. Rick Scott, former CEO of the company that was at the center of the biggest Medicare fraud scheme in American history, has emerged as the most vocal Republican proponent of healthcare reform, warning his fellow GOP lawmakers that continued refusal to engage with the issue risks a "slow creep" toward single-payer healthcare.
On Thursday, according to Axios, Scott (R-Fla.) is "convening a group of House and Senate conservatives on Capitol Hill to pore over fresh polling to develop GOP alternatives to the Affordable Care Act."
Late last month, Scott unveiled his own proposal titled the More Affordable Care Act, which would keep ACA exchanges intact while creating "Trump Health Freedom Accounts" that enrollees could use to pay for out-of-pocket costs. Scott's plan, as the health policy group KFF explained, would allow enhanced ACA tax credits to expire and let states replace subsidies in the original ACA with contributions to the newly created health savings accounts.
"Unlike ACA premium tax credits, which can only be used for ACA Marketplace plans, the accounts in the Scott proposal could be used for any type of health insurance plan, including short-term plans that can exclude people based on preexisting conditions," KFF noted. "States could also waive certain provisions of the ACA, including the requirement to cover certain benefits."
"While ACA plans would still be required to cover people with preexisting conditions under the Scott proposal," the group added, "it is likely that the ACA marketplace would collapse in states that seek a waiver under his approach."
Last month, amid the longest government shutdown in US history, Scott leapt at the opportunity to champion possible Republican alternatives to the healthcare status quo, despite his ignominious record.
In 2003, the US Justice Department announced that the hospital chain HCA Inc.—formerly known as Columbia/HCA—had agreed to pay hundreds of millions of dollars in penalties and damages to settle what the DOJ characterized as the "largest healthcare fraud case in US history."
Scott resigned as CEO of Columbia/HCA in 1997, days after federal agents raided company facilities as part of the sweeping fraud probe. The federal government and company whistleblowers said the hospital giant "systematically defrauded" Medicare, Medicaid, and other healthcare programs through unlawful billing and other ploys.
"In 2000, Scott invoked the Fifth Amendment 75 times in a deposition as part of a civil case involving his time leading the company," Florida Phoenix reported last year. A former HCA accountant accused Scott, who was never directly charged in the case, of leading "a criminal enterprise."
Scott later served two terms as governor of Florida and is now one of the wealthiest members of Congress, and he maintains he was the victim of a politically motivated DOJ investigation.
"The Clinton Justice Department went after me," Scott complained during his 2024 Senate reelection campaign.
It's unclear whether Scott's healthcare ideas will gain sufficient traction with President Donald Trump and Republican lawmakers, who have seemed content to bash the existing system without proposing anything concrete or viable to replace it. Trump was supposed to unveil his own healthcare proposal last month, but the White House pulled the plug amid GOP pushback.
Some members of the Democratic caucus, meanwhile, are making the case for the very system Scott is warning his colleagues about.
"Let’s finally create a system that puts your health over corporate profits," Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) said earlier this week. "We need Medicare for All."
Many anti-war figures actually welcomed the news, with one professor calling the Department of Defense name "a euphemism for an institution that is mostly focused on wars of imperial aggression."
In his latest attempt to project an image of strength for an empire in a state of decline, US President Donald Trump on Friday signed an executive order to rename the Department of Defense the Department of War, a move that would ultimately require congressional authorization.
"I think it's a much more appropriate name, especially in light of where the world is right now," Trump explained during a signing ceremony for the move.
When floating the name change idea last month, Trump said that "I'm sure Congress will go along if we need that."
Indeed, on Friday Sens. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) and Mike Lee (R-Utah) introduced a bill meant to coincide with Trump's decree. The Department of War name dates back to the 18th century but hasn't been used since the National Security Act of 1947, which created the National Military Establishment (NME)—a name that was changed to Department of Defense because the acronym NME sounded too much like the word "enemy."
"The United States military is not a purely defensive force," Scott said in a statement. "We are the most lethal fighting force on the face of the planet—ready to defeat any enemy when called upon. Restoring the name to Department of War reflects our true purpose: to dominate wars, not merely respond after being provoked."
The move faces considerable opposition from lawmakers, including Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), a former Navy combat pilot who, in a dig at Trump, quipped that "only someone who avoided the draft would want to rename the Department of Defense to the Department of War," and Sen. Andy Kim (D-NJ), who argued that "Americans want to prevent wars, not tout them."
However, others noted that "War Department" is a moniker befitting a nation that has attacked, invaded, or occupied others in all but a handful of the Defense Department's 78-year history, and which has a global military footprint of hundreds of overseas bases.
well, it’s truth in advertising and it’s honest, which is rare for Trump
[image or embed]
— David Sirota (@davidsirota.com) September 4, 2025 at 4:54 PM
Many "non-interventionists and foreign policy realists" concur that the name change "is just more honest," as Jack Hunter wrote for Responsible Statecraft.
Pointing to this week's deadly US strike on an alleged drug-running boat in the Caribbean and Secretary of State Marco Rubio's threat of more such attacks to come, former Human Rights Watch director Kenneth Roth said Friday on social media that if Trump "keeps sending US forces to blow up alleged (but unproven) drug traffickers, he should call it the Department of Summary Executions."
Keeping with that theme, photojournalist Joshua Collins said on social media that "I actually think calling it 'the Department of War' is infinitely more honest. Because that's exactly what it does."
"Maybe while they're at it though, they can rename ICE 'the Department of kidnappings, extortion, forced disappearances, and human trafficking," Collins added, referring to Trump's Immigration and Customs Enforcement anti-immigrant blitz.
Jason Hickel, a professor at the Autonomous University of Barcelona's Institute for Environmental Science and Technology, said on social media that "this is wonderful news."
"The US 'Department of Defense' has never been primarily about defense; it is a euphemism for an institution that is mostly focused on wars of imperial aggression," he wrote. "At least now there is no pretending otherwise."
Medea Benjamin, co-founder of the peace group CodePink, wrote: "I'm glad Trump is changing the name of the Defense Department to the War Dept because it has never been about defense. And calling it the 'Department-to-make-the-merchants-of-death-rich' is kind of long."
Former Congressman Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) remarked: "Department of War? More like Department of Distraction... Epstein."
Matt Duss, executive vice president at the Center for International Policy and a former foreign policy adviser to Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), said Friday that no matter what the president calls the Pentagon, "Trump is really good at renaming things, but bad at keeping Americans safe and prosperous."
"He ran as the supposed anti-war candidate but has proven to be just the opposite," Duss noted. "This stunt underscores that Trump is more interested in belligerent chest thumping than genuine peacemaking—with dangerous consequences for American security, global standing, and the safety of our armed services."