According to a cited Forbes report, in 1989, Bain Capital purchased controlling interest in Damon Clinical Laboratories Corporation, a medical testing company located in Needham, Massachusetts.

In 1996, Damon admitted that from 1988 to 1993 it had shored up its earnings by submitting false claims to Medicare and other federal programs, and had agreed to pay , after being found guilty, a $35.3 million criminal fine — one of the largest corporate fines in U.S. history — and an additional $83.7 million to settle the lawsuits..

...

In 1993, Romney claimed he was unaware of any investigation — quoted in the Boston Globe on Oct. 10, 1993. When the Globe revisited the case during Romney’s run for governor in 2002, his story was different. Romney’s story changed about his knowledge of the investigation.

The Globe, disclosing that Romney had earned $473,000 from the sale, reported on Oct. 10, 2002

Romney Was On Damon’s Board Of Directors While The Fraud Took Place – He Initially Claimed He WasUnaware Of Any Criminal Investigation.
“Mitt Romney, former Republican challenger to US Sen. Edward M.Kennedy, who was a member of Damon’s board, said he was unaware of any investigation. … Romney said that[Damon’s then-CEO Robert] Rosen told the board in about 1992 ‘that all current practices at the company werenow in conformity with government regulations and that in the past there may have been practices which wouldnot be deemed appropriate.’”
(Kimberly Blanton, “Needham Lab Fined $ 119m For Fraud,”
The Boston Globe
, 10/10/96)


“Made Large Profits … From A Criminal Scheme To Fraudulently Bill The Federal Medicare System…”
“[Romney] and his venture capital firm made large profits from the 1993 sale of a Needham medical testingcompany whose robust revenues were generated in part from a criminal scheme to fraudulently bill thefederal Medicare system for unnecessary blood tests.”
(Frank Phillips, “Romney Profited On Firm Later Tied To Fraud,”
The Boston Globe
, 10/10/02)

“Pure And Simple … Corporate Greed Run Amok.”
“Damon Corp. pleaded guilty in 1996 to a federalconspiracy charge of defrauding the government of $25 million between 1988 and 1993. It paid a record $119million fine and penalty for a scheme that then-US Attorney Donald Stern labeled ‘a case, pure and simple, ofcorporate greed run amok.’”
(Frank Phillips, “Romney Profited On Firm Later Tied To Fraud,”
The Boston Globe
, 10/10/02

1993: Immediately Following Acquisition By Corning, Damon Closed Plant In Needham Heights, Laid Off115 Massachusetts Workers.
“Republican businessman Mitt Romney … helped direct a Massachusetts medicaldiagnostics company toward a merger that resulted in the permanent closure of a Needham Heights plant andlayoffs of about 115 Massachusetts workers. Damon Corp. was headquartered in Massachusetts for more than30 years until it was purchased by Corning Inc. in 1993 and the Needham facility was closed. … The day after themerger with Corning was completed, the new company notified the Massachusetts Department of Employmentand Training that it was permanently closing the Needham plant and laying off about 115 people.”
(Meg Vaillancourt,“Romney-Aided Deal Closed Damon Plant,”
The Boston Globe
, 10/9/94)

Romney “Feared” The Massachusetts Layoffs Would Come, But Voted To Approve Deal Anyway

Things are getting awkward for Sheldon Adelson, the casino magnate who pledged to spend a “limitless” amount of money to get Mitt Romney elected. Adelson’s latest woes stem from business practices surrounding his lucrative casino in Macau, the only Chinese city with legalized gambling.

The Macau operation has long been under scrutiny but a new in-depth investigation from ProPublica and PBS focused on allegations of improper, and perhaps in some cases illegal, business dealings by Adelson’s Las Vegas Sands company in China. While focusing on the possibility that Sands violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act with a $700,000 payment to a Chinese associate, PBS also released documents that bolstered accusations of business ties between Adelson’s shop and Chinese organized crime figures.

...

Because Nevada gambling authorities forbid doing any business with organized crime, Sands’s Las Vegas gambling licenses could hang in the balance. (Adelson and his company refused to comment for the PBS story.) But Adelson has other issues with his China operations.

...

Part of Adelson’s Chinese dealings, which came under federal scrutiny in 2011, went through a non-profit called the Adelson Center for U.S.-China Enterprise. According to a WikiLeaks cable flagged by Salon, the association, which was meant to facilitate business between the U.S. and China, was shut down by China after some “missteps” with “funds transfer mechanisms” used by Sands. Unlike competitors, the cable said, Sands lobbied Beijing directly instead of going through Macau authorities. Adelson and Sands deny any wrongdoing related to the federal investigation.

In 2005, Chinese Appliance Maker Haier Group, Working In Tandem With Bain Capital, Attempted – AndUltimately Failed – To Take Over Newton, IA-Based Maytag Corp.Haier Embarked On $1.3 Billion Takeover Bid For Iowa-Based Appliance Manufacturer Maytag.

“For years,American workers have worried about losing their jobs to low-cost workers in China. Now a new trend is emergingthat could be nearly as big: Wealthy Chinese companies are coming to the U.S. looking to swallow Americancompanies whole. Maytag Corp., the maker of such quintessentially American products as Maytag refrigerators,Amana microwaves and Hoover vacuum cleaners, disclosed Monday night a $1.28 billion takeover bid from agroup led by Haier America Trading, a unit of China’s Haier Group.”
(David Greising, “Chinese Firm Wants Maytag,”
Chicago Tribune
, 6/22/05)

Haier Is A Mammoth, State-Controlled Company With Opaque Financial Structures, UndisclosedOwnership Interests, Ties To Communist Party Elites And Manufacturing Facilities In Iran

"Obama was the Main Street candidate in 2008, and he's the Main Street candidate today"

If you add up the Wall Street contributions to the Obama campaign in 2008...it totals 3.6 million dollars. But ordinary people donated a total of 656.3 million dollars to the Obama campaign in 2008. So Obama got 182 times as much support from Main Street, as he did from Wall Street.

Myth 1: Everyone is required to buy insurance.

That’s not true. Over 80%* of Americans have insurance through their employers or receive insurance because they are in the military or are veterans or are poor or old. No one in these categories is required to buy individual insurance.

(Actually no one at all has to buy health insurance because, if they fall under that provision and don’t buy it, they can pay the penalty instead. The penalty is far cheaper than the cost of insurance.)

*81% of Americans under 65 have insurance. People over 65 have single-payer coverage; i.e., Medicare (with some holding additional private insurance).

Myth 2: People who don’t have insurance will be forced to buy insurance they can’t afford.

This is also untrue.

People with the lowest incomes are covered under Medicaid, which was expanded by the ACA for those with incomes up to 133% of the poverty level.

For those with incomes between 133% and 400% of the poverty level, subsidies are available so they can afford to buy health coverage in the new health care exchange.

There is a hardship exemption for those who don’t have insurance and say they can’t afford it.

And, as noted under myth 1, no one actually must buy health insurance, since they can pay the penalty instead.

(Please Go To Pollways Link For Other Myths, very informative)

How does the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) change health coverage in the U.S.?

The ACA makes dramatic changes to the way millions of Americans access health care. This comprehensive reform of health insurance attempts to make insurance more affordable, higher in quality and more accessible for people. It also expands Medicaid, imposes new responsibilities on individuals to purchase insurance and provides new incentives for employers to provide insurance for their employees. Together, these changes are estimated to expand coverage to 32 million people who were previously uninsured.

Insurance reforms

Beginning in 2014, the ACA requires health insurers to accept all applicants for insurance, regardless of their health status. In addition, insurers will no longer be allowed to charge higher premiums or exclude benefits because someone has a pre-existing condition. Most insurers will also be required to provide coverage that meets federal standards for benefits and cost-sharing.

As of September 23, 2010, a number of insurance reforms went into effect, including requiring insurers to:

Cover certain preventive services without deductibles or cost-sharing
Allow parents to keep adult children up to age 26 on their insurance
Cover all children under the age of 19, regardless of health status
Create an internal and external appeals process to handle consumer complaints and denials
Eliminate lifetime limits on benefits and significantly raise the annual limits for benefits (eventually it will also eliminate annual limits)
Spend a minimum of 80 percent of premiums on medical services and quality improvement
Justify unreasonable premium increases
Eliminate the practice of rescissions (when a health plan retroactively cancels coverage after the enrollee gets sick)
Allow patients to choose their health care professional as a primary care provide

For those that are uninsured
Without question, uninsured Americans will be most affected by health care reform. If you don’t have health insurance because you’re unemployed or don’t make enough to afford it, you’re going to get a subsidy to help cover the cost of coverage. The subsidy will be based on your income, but the result will be that at least 30 million people who couldn’t afford insurance will now theoretically be able to.

And if you have lingering doubts that this group of people really needed the government’s help, check out a couple of news stories we recently did about how the uninsured suffer:

This one is called Killer Hospital Bills: it’s about an uninsured woman went to the emergency room with stomach pains and emerged hours later with a $12,000 bill.
And here’s one about a senior citizen who had to file bankruptcy because of health costs.

So the news is good for uninsured Americans who needed and wanted coverage, but there’s another group of uninsured who may not be so happy: those that can afford insurance but choose to forgo the expense by going without. In an effort to encourage all Americans to have health insurance, beginning in 2014 these people will face fines for that kind of risk-taking. The proposed fine is 2.5% of income, up to $2,085, so the incentive to have insurance will be powerful.

This DHS site has some great information as well
Affordable Care Act: Opportunities for the Aging Network
http://aoa.gov/Aging_Statistics/Health_care_reform.aspx

What does the Supreme Court's health-care ruling mean for me?
The court's decision to uphold all but one component of the health-care law means new rules for insurers that have already taken effect will remain in place. Beginning in 2014, virtually all Americans will have to obtain health insurance or pay a penalty. There also will be new opportunities to get coverage, including state-based marketplaces known as exchanges* (through which individuals will be able to purchase private plans that meet strict benchmarks for quality) and federal subsidies to help low-income people buy plans on the exchanges. The law will also expand the eligibility rules for Medicaid, but the Court found that states can not be penalized if they decline to comply with the expansion, raising questions as to how effectively the federal government will be able to implement it.