danivon wrote:DF - hmmm. I never said that it would be the single thing to boost the economy. Yet again you put words into my mouth so you can 'win' the debating point you made up.

Not at all.

My point is that it would not be a boon, but a drag. Surely, you don't agree with that. So, if anticipating your rejection is wrong, then I'm wrong.

However, you'll still oppose my position.

I said that wages are a factor in the incentives for getting a job, and also that decent wages don't have to be the drag on the economy that right wing ideologues assume. I don't see you deny the first part, but you want to make out the second part is far more than what I said.

Overly broad. You didn't define "decent." When you do, we can have a debate.

How many job openings are there, and how many people who could fill them. Not that tough a question surely?

Here's an idea: instead of asking a "not tough" question, why not just post the data--since you seem to feel it would be easily mined?

If you want to break it down by qualifications, be my guest. The more data the better.

Nope, you posed the "not that tough a question." You answer it.

Still, if there are a large number of people unqualified, is that also not an issue? If you are out of work and have little money, where do you get the training for qualifications - and the money to pay for that training?

Answer it yourself.

bbauska wrote:The numbers substantiate a shift to these hard to (dis)prove afflictions. Over the past three decade’s awards for mental illness climbed from 16% of total claims to one third by 2010. During the same period “back pain” increased its market share from 13 to 28%.

The numbers show a shift, but they do not prove how much of that shift is fraud.

For a start, the period used is 1980-2010, but the eligibility rules changes in 1984 to include conditions not previously included. So one would expect those categories to increase absent any fraud.

• Every $1 the U.S. government invests in combating Medicare and Medicaid fraud saves $1.55. (U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, 2009)[/b]

Refuting the cost benefit myth that it is not worth combating fraud

Who said that it was not worth it? I would say that the more you spend, the less you will recoup. 1.55:1 is not a great ratio either.

Reporting on your neighbors is already accepted. How dystopian...

Reporting fraud is fine. It was your suggestion that the state pay informants for doing so that I objected to.

Doctor Fate wrote:Overly broad. You didn't define "decent." When you do, we can have a debate.

I would define 'decent' as:

1) Being enough for an employee and their family to live on
2) Being enough to provide a measurable incentive to work instead of not work

It's not specific because the exact level would vary according to circumstance.

Here's an idea: instead of asking a "not tough" question, why not just post the data--since you seem to feel it would be easily mined?

I love this new way of discourse, DF.

I'll see what I can find out. Not sure what it is that makes you object so strongly to the idea that someone might ask for data to give the context.

However, as you are being evasive, I don't see why I should do any more work than to answer my original question. Indeed, once a question is asked, anyone can answer it, if they so wish. Your reluctance to is fine. Your demand that I do so is just childish.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Overly broad. You didn't define "decent." When you do, we can have a debate.

I would define 'decent' as:

1) Being enough for an employee and their family to live on
2) Being enough to provide a measurable incentive to work instead of not work

It's not specific because the exact level would vary according to circumstance.

Thank you for establishing that a national raising of the minimum wage would be foolish. The cost of living in Anniston, Alabama is not the same as NYC, LA, etc.

Here's an idea: instead of asking a "not tough" question, why not just post the data--since you seem to feel it would be easily mined?

I love this new way of discourse, DF.

I'll see what I can find out. Not sure what it is that makes you object so strongly to the idea that someone might ask for data to give the context.

However, as you are being evasive, I don't see why I should do any more work than to answer my original question. Indeed, once a question is asked, anyone can answer it, if they so wish. Your reluctance to is fine. Your demand that I do so is just childish.

No, you asking a broad question and noting that it is easily answered is what is childish. An adult would simply make his argument and post his data.

According to the BLT, latest figures for job openings are about 3.7 million - http://www.bls.gov/jlt/

Latest unemployment figures are 11.7 million. True numbers of people out of work and able to would appear to me to be higher than that. Especially if, as you believe, many of those on disability should not be and should be looking for work instead.

I was asking because I did not know, I know those for the UK, but it's not the same. I figured you might have a clue, as you like to post regular updates on unemployment, or that someone else might have an interest enough to look. But I already made the argument - if the ratio is high, it means that there are not enough jobs around to provide an incentive.

Thank you for establishing that a national raising of the minimum wage would be foolish. The cost of living in Anniston, Alabama is not the same as NYC, LA, etc.

Who said it needed to be national? Wasn't me.

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

Danivon,
I did not say YOU were the one who said anything about it not being cost effective. Defensive, Hmmm?

Freeman wasn't saying it was not cost effective either. He was suggesting benefit fraud was less of a drain than something else, and so less of a priority.

Your figure along with his suggest that to save $30 bn in fraud it would mean spending $20bn.

bbauska

. RickyP says it is ok to claim disabliity because you don't have a job and/or the training to get the job you want.

No I didn't.
I said it was a stupid system that forced people to make this choice in order to receive medical insurance..
I do find it particularly hard to judge someone who has worked most of their life... and who nearing the end of their working life finds themselves unemployed and with very few prospects because the need for their previously valuable skills has diminished. Through no fault of their own, and only through the changed economy. Changed through out sourcing, globalization and technology. But changed and leaving them without much of a future,

Their given an option tight now B. Lie or exaggerate their disability and receive minimal benefits or be the incredibly moral person you would have them be and risk bankruptcy from their first major medical problem.
Now, you and i both know that once they become ill enough they'll get emergent treatment....paid for at great expense by tax payers.
So by making the moral choice that you would have them make, they've lost what little savings they have and started costing the tax payer a great deal of money for expensive medical care, delivered - in many cases- too late in the development of their condition.
Or they can exaggerate and receive the security of good medical coverage that will allow them to deal with their medical problems without going broke, and early enough that the treatment is likely to be more effective...

It isn't a question of people making moral choices, its a question of making stupid choices. Choice s they shouldn't have to make. Disability shouldn't be the way to deliver medical insurance. It should be a narrow targeted program that helps people who genuinely find themselves unable to work. When it becomes the only way people can get security then its not their fault its a stupid system.
Its the same stupidity that has Missouri hiring private consultants to get as many State beneficiaries into the Federal Disability program and off their roles, by helping them exaggerate or lie .... Now, thats immoral. And its a cynical choice being made by people who know that the federal tax bill is paid in greater part by people outside their state then inside...

but in your very first sentence you state it is a persons CHOICE, your entire post above claims this is a choice. If you claim this is a choice, then bbauska is correct in his statement. Those who assume back pain is proven with an MRI, those who claim mental illness is not substantially increasing in claims, to those who claim such dramatic shifts in the claims made, these people are happy in their own world of ignorance. The stats don't lie!

No, Tom, because bbauska was saying that we approved and supported the choice if it is to commit fraud. I don't support fraud. However, I can see why people would do it out of self interest.

Also, it is not so cut and dried as you would like to think. While some of the increase will be fraud, some will be in marginal cases. You may not like the idea that there are grey-areas, or that diagnosis has changed over the years, but it has, and some of the people you and bbauska are labelling as frauds (and in bbauska's case deiciding to lump in with killers) are not.

The stats do not tell the whole story, and the selected stats you point to certainly do not.

However, MRI and X-rays can be used to diagnose back pain (so less labelling others as 'ignorant', please). It is not.perfect by any means, and it should not be routine or the only means, but it can provide evidence of the causes of back pain and low mobility.

Still not seen any constructive proposals from you yet, though Tom.

I am saying rationalization of a crime is wrong. It can lead to further rationalization of other crimes.

(hence my hypotheticals, I gave)

Given that the opening premise of the whole thread is that the system encourages people to make such a choice, aren't we all doing that?

Moralising and venting may make you feel better, and blaming a nebulous 'left' along with the claimants themselves is all very partisan and expected of conservatives. But what more do you have to add? I agree that better evaluation and in some situations spot-checks would help reduce obvious fraud, but I'm not sure that would address the problem that you are really talking about.

Here's a slightly different angle: what about the corrosive effects of people gaming the system? Even if the fraud numbers are not high -- and that is debatable since we haven't really analyzed the data sufficiently on these pages -- what you also have to take into account is the damage to the society of people taking advantage. (I don't think this has to be a left/right issue. Certainly Wall Street high rollers who take advantage and don't get punished also has a corrosive effect.) For the poor slobs like me and millions others who make their living in an honest way, who pay their taxes, and take personal responsibility, and refuse government handouts whether or not they qualify, it add insult to injury to see others game the system. You have to factor that in to the "cost" of abused government programs and a government that allows it to happen, or in some cases even encourages it.

Disability is available to people who can not work. Not being able to work is not a choice, if it becomes a choice, it is now fraud. No two ways about it.

Indeed it can be corrosive. But we can still look at the reasons why people do such things. Especially if is legal (because then you don't get to simply dismiss them as criminals), indeed I would argue that you have to. Otherwise you risk the "solution" backfiring and making things worse.

Understanding why people behave in a particular way is not the same as condoning it. It is not even the same as tolerating it. If the problem is systemic, then I see little from bbauska in terms of how to solve it. His solutions only address obvious fraud or ineligibility, but would not affect those who play the rules to their advantage. Yours were more about how the system as a whole works.

I do not argue that there is no problem. I can debate the causes, the context, the extent and the possible array of solutions, but I'm not going to stick around if some here are just going to try to score morality points by associating me or others with positions they are not taking. Forget ricky, he's confused and confusing.