tom

you seem to assume disability is included in this total, it is NOT

From usgovernmentspending.com

so that in the recession year of 2010 total expenditures on welfare, including all health care expenditures, reached over 8 percent of GDP

I think this says it is...

The cause of the huge uptick in welfare recipients was a desperate economy.... not fraud.

rickyp wrote:fate

Is that a typo?

No. Someone on welfare in the US gets around $11,000 in the most generous jurisdictions. A lot less in some states..
I know you've quoted all kinds of programs and ridiculous amounts, but the real world is that few people qualify for more than basic assistance and maybe one targeted benefit... As your article states above, the federal disability Benefit is $13,000.

Um, but you said it was $2000, not $13000.

If Disability is $1,000 a month (give or take) and Welfare is as little as $2K, how do people survive? Are we to believe that everyone on the dole (aka "government benefits") is homeless or in government housing? A person would struggle in the Appalachian region on less than $1200 a month (your low Welfare figure plus the Disability figure you cite).

How do they buy microwaves, X-boxes and take vacations?

So,

1 (and to an extent 4) - Move some or all of it to the States. I think where DF, Tom and I agree is that this is not really addressing the issues of how the scheme is run, just who runs it.

2 If it goes to court, the 'government' should have an attourney. I'm stunned that they would not, to be honest. Still, I am not sure that the process should end up in the courts - if the assessment is rigorous, and appeals within the system are seen to be fair, there should be no need to go to court.

3 Monitoring of people on disability to check they can stay on it. Can't see what's wrong with that in principle. Periodic checks that people are still entitled (after all, often conditions can improve) seem like a good way to catch fraud as well.

5 Second opinions from doctors - DF worries about bias, well, fine - I was proposing that the doctor could be selected by the Federal programme anyway, but would have to demonstrate why they differ if they do.

6 Here's the thing: Unemployment is time limited, but quite generous. Disability is not time limited, and is a bit less generous. However, if someone can't get work despite trying, we should not let them and their family starve, surely? I was not proposing making it equivalent, and it would be basically lower and not much of an incentive to stick on it instead of looking for alternatives like work. If of course work is available.

7 Different levels would address the 'grey area' Indeed there are conditions that would preclude full time work, but might allow part time. Part time work is a pretty big part of the economy. And I am not really worried about the 'howling' DF predicts. I thought I was as liberal as they come and I'm proposing this...

8 DF - what it means is that if someone is disabled and can work, but it's not easy (say they can't drive due to their disability, but can do the job when they get to work), it would be better to give modest help to enable them to work rather than to have them not able to work for the want of it.

9 I'm not talking about laws against discrimination (which make sense in principle), that is a stick. I'm thinking of a carrot - perhaps tax breaks for companies that employ people with registered disabilities, or a variation on (8) to help the employer as well as employees?

The problem I have is that Tom at least seems to be operating on a binary position - someone is either disabled and therefore cannot work, or someone is not and therefore can work like anyone else. I'm not sure that's realistic, or particularly fair. The problem that you guys see is that there are people in the grey middle who are getting full benefits.

I am basically saying (through 6, 7, 8, 9) that it would be just as unfair to exclude all of that grey middle from any assistance because they are not completely unable to function.

I also think you are a little overkeen to dismiss things. Just because a lot of people have mental or musculo-skeletal claims does not mean it's all down to 'neurosis' and 'back pain'.

Mind you, one thing I will say that will annoy the ricky-baiters: universal healthcare would give you two advantages - one is that there would be less incentive to claim benefits if you don't need to be on them to get it. The other is that with decent access to healthcare, fewer people may end up disabled in the first place.

danivon wrote:I also think you are a little overkeen to dismiss things. Just because a lot of people have mental or musculo-skeletal claims does not mean it's all down to 'neurosis' and 'back pain'.

Right, neither does that mean that everyone with these claims are genuine. It's very likely there's a healthy percentage of fraud.

Let me give you another example. Drug dealers. Do they qualify for government aid? You bet. They often make massive amounts of money and yet are eligible for food stamps and unemployment. Do you suppose some might even get disability?

Mind you, one thing I will say that will annoy the ricky-baiters: universal healthcare would give you two advantages - one is that there would be less incentive to claim benefits if you don't need to be on them to get it. The other is that with decent access to healthcare, fewer people may end up disabled in the first place.

Maybe.

However, as people get used to the Government (that disembodied 3rd person who is really a myth) paying for more and more, they become more and more accustomed to ripping it off.

The other thing is: we're not going to have universal healthcare after the way your man has blown the current system.

Doctor Fate wrote:Right, neither does that mean that everyone with these claims are genuine. It's very likely there's a healthy percentage of fraud.

Well, let's actually quantify that fraud - and let's also differentiate between actual fraud, and soft cases.

I don't dispute that there is fraud. There will be in any human system large enough, by the nature of humans. The question is how much there is, and then you can look at how to combat it.

Let me give you another example. Drug dealers. Do they qualify for government aid? You bet. They often make massive amounts of money and yet are eligible for food stamps and unemployment. Do you suppose some might even get disability?

Criminals might be committing crimes? Gosh, you don't say! Not telling the state voluntarily that they have illicit income?

And? The problem with drug dealers is that they are drug dealers. If your issue is that they may also get benefits, I don't know what systemic solutions there are other than to identify the drug dealers (and other criminals) as such and catch them that way. I thought that was the police's job.

However, as people get used to the Government (that disembodied 3rd person who is really a myth) paying for more and more, they become more and more accustomed to ripping it off.

The other thing is: we're not going to have universal healthcare after the way your man has blown the current system.

Not my man (I do wish you would stop that crap, it's unnecessary, cheap, and irrelevant). I live in a country where we had universal healthcare for 60 years before your current President came to office.

Here are some stats about spending in the US on disability.
http://www.bos.frb.org/commdev/cdevfin- ... addock.pdf
So in 2006 total money spent on disability income maintenance was 155 billion in 2006. Let's assume there is a relatively high rate of fraud, say 20 percent. That would mean we could save 30 billion if we were completely efficient. Probably the best we could do is maybe save 20 billion ( I'm sure the numbers are higher now but we're still not talking about a huge amount of mon).Compare these numbers with labor's loss as a percentage of total income. Currently, labor has lost close to five percent as compared to long-term averages. http://www.clevelandfed.org/research/co ... 012-13.cfm
Total US income was about 13 trillion in 2012. So the loss to labor is about 650 billion a year. That shift of 650 billion to the rich seems a lot worse to me than a poor mill worker
who exaggerates his back pain to get 15K.

freeman2 wrote:Here are some stats about spending in the US on disability.
http://www.bos.frb.org/commdev/cdevfin- ... addock.pdf
So in 2006 total money spent on disability income maintenance was 155 billion in 2006. Let's assume there is a relatively high rate of fraud, say 20 percent. That would mean we could save 30 billion if we were completely efficient. Probably the best we could do is maybe save 20 billion ( I'm sure the numbers are higher now but we're still not talking about a huge amount of mon).Compare these numbers with labor's loss as a percentage of total income. Currently, labor has lost close to five percent as compared to long-term averages. http://www.clevelandfed.org/research/co ... 012-13.cfm
Total US income was about 13 trillion in 2012. So the loss to labor is about 650 billion a year. That shift of 650 billion to the rich seems a lot worse to me than a poor mill worker
who exaggerates his back pain to get 15K.

Those stats were pre-recession. Disability has exploded since then.

I would also note the author is a psychiatrist. Not really sure that's the guy to explain the economics of disability.

15% of Americans get Food Stamps?

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2013/04/ ... od-stamps/

Food-stamp use rose 1.8% in the U.S. in January from a year earlier, with 15% of the U.S. population receiving benefits. (See an interactive map with data on use since 1990.)

One of the federal government’s biggest social welfare programs, which expanded when the economy convulsed, isn’t shrinking back alongside the recovery, the Journal reported last month.

Food stamp rolls increased on a year-over-year basis, but were 1.1% lower from the prior month, the U.S. Department of Agriculture reported. Though annual growth continues, the pace has slowed since the depths of the recession.

The number of recipients in the food stamp program, formally known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), reached 47.3 million, or nearly one in seven Americans.

fate

Um, but you said it was $2000, not $13000

No I didn't. I said the difference.

ricky

As described the benefits for a disabled person versus an person on welfare proper aren't vastly different. $2,000 a year

I perceived it as a difference also, although it was not implicitly stated.

Fate

Those stats were pre-recession. Disability has exploded since then.

Of course. And it wasn't a rash of industrial accidents, but closed businesses crashing along with the economy. Then, people, suddenly out of work, are given options. Disability and medicare OR Unemployment checks for 99 weeks.
Can you imagine that. particularly for older people say 55 plus, with few prospects the disability option might be attractive?

How hard should the government try to keep those people away from free medical care and a couple thousand extra dollars? It seems to me that the long list of suggestions is an awful lot of effort and great expense... As Freeman points out even a extremely successful program isn't going to limit the "fraud" much.
And how much fraud is it really? If someone over the age of 55 is turned away from disability, and can't find gainful employment ...eventually they'll require medical care for which they have few financial resources... Unless your solution includes excluding people like this from medicaid - whats the point?

The image of the independent resourceful American battling themselves against all odds.... independent of government assistance, doesn't include the image of hundreds of thousands of impoverished people dieing from hunger and lack of access to medical care. Unless it suddenly does, an efficient way of offering assistance has to be managed.
And the image hasn't been a reality in the US since the 1930's when there were thousands of impoverished dieing from hunger and lack of medical and the nation made a commitment to correct the situation.
The notion that an enormous effort is required to ensure some people are worthy of the couple thousand dollars in extra benefits defies the reality. Most of these people have few options and what ever benefits they are receiving they require. (Anyone earning significant income and receiving benefits are fraudsters and deserve prosecution, but no one has shown this to be a significant number.)

Freemans right, If one wants to spend money chasing fraud, chase the people hiding money from taxation illegally... That'll get a return on investment.
And if the US had a universal medicare system, disability pensions would stop being welfare with medical care. And start being specific targeted aid for people with special needs caused by their disability that they cannot afford. Right now, that includes medical insurance generally and as such attracts people who aren't disabled so much that they can't really work.

Doesn't the explosion of disability claims as a result of the recession tell you something? Someone with the propensity to commit fraud does not wait for a recession to commit fraud, if that is a true statement then the growth of disability claims is due to people being forced into very difficult choices. The answer I think is not to attack people who are getting dignified welfare but to create jobs that pay enough money so that people can support themselves. The answer is to significantly raise the minimum wage, Empowrer unions, put restrictions on us companies going overseas .
But if you're not going to do that, if you're not going to create enough decent jobs then if you want social stability you probably should not push this issue too hard.

freeman2 wrote:Doesn't the explosion of disability claims as a result of the recession tell you something? Someone with the propensity to commit fraud does not wait for a recession to commit fraud, if that is a true statement then the growth of disability claims is due to people being forced into very difficult choices.

"Necessity is the mother of invention."

"Never let a good crisis go to waste."

There are probably hundreds of such sayings. Why? Because it's true. In difficult times, people do things they might not otherwise do.

The answer I think is not to attack people who are getting dignified welfare but to create jobs that pay enough money so that people can support themselves. The answer is to significantly raise the minimum wage, Empowrer unions, put restrictions on us companies going overseas .
But if you're not going to do that, if you're not going to create enough decent jobs then if you want social stability you probably should not push this issue too hard.

Nothing "creates jobs" quite like raising the minimum wage and empowering unions. That's sure to make the economy take off.

Wait. That's not a famous saying.

Hmm . . .

Doesn't the explosion of disability claims as a result of the recession tell you something? Someone with the propensity to commit fraud does not wait for a recession to commit fraud, if that is a true statement then the growth of disability claims is due to people being forced into very difficult choices.

I'm not sure it's down to individual choices really. States are hard-up as well as individuals. Some states, like California, are virtually bankrupt. Disability benefits are paid at the Federal level. As such the more people you can move across to disability the less the strain on your own budget. Logically this has to be the reason why the number of claims has exploded of late. The fact that a lot of jobs disappeared as a result of the recession can't be an explanation because if it were then you'd have to accept that millions of people suddenly became 'disabled' right after they lost their job, which is a bit of a reach.

Doctor Fate wrote:Nothing "creates jobs" quite like raising the minimum wage and empowering unions. That's sure to make the economy take off.

Except of course, it's not just about the number of jobs available, it's also about whether they pay.

When it comes to incentives, one major incentive regarding work is the reward for it. If wages are so low that benefits aren't much worse (or people in work still end up needing benefits), there's surely an issue.

Also, people in work and earning reasonable wages does create more jobs. If people have more disposable income, they create more demand. CEOs like to pretend that they 'create' jobs, but they are only going to be doing it in response to the market.