Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 16006
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 09 Apr 2013, 8:24 am

GMTom wrote: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.
However much you would like it to be that only those who are 100% unable to work through disability can claim, that is not how reality works.

For example, what if you can work, but only do limited things due to disability, and no jobs that would accomodate you are available?

When the jobs are there, you can work. When they go, you can claim unemployment for a limited period. When that expires and the jobs are still not around, should you be able to claim, at least until suitable employment is available? What if it does become available but you are one ofmany unsuccessful applicants, so it's gone again?

Sure, you could choose not to claim if you are entitled, but it isn't always 'fraud' when you do.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7463
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 09 Apr 2013, 8:32 am

Fair enough. I accept that. It is clear and concise.

Understanding why people are using the system for disability when they are not truly disabled may make for a nice conversation, but needing to put in place some stops on such behavior needs to be addressed. I think we agree on the following:
People can notify the agency of possible fraud
Criminal/civil penalties for fraud (including repayment of all funds)
Removal from program for fraud

Side note:
I feel the same penalties should apply for financial persons gaming the system
People can notify the agency of possible fraud
Criminal/civil penalties for fraud (including repayment of all funds)
Removal of all licenses
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 09 Apr 2013, 3:14 pm

tom
but in your very first sentence you state it is a persons CHOICE, your entire post above claims this is a choice.

People apply for disability. They are making a choice.

According to the statistics earlier posted by Freman 94% of applicants seem to have qualified. Making the false claimants a small 6%.

There hasn't been a sudden change in the morality of the working class person, in the US. There has been a significant increase in unemployment amongst them recently. Given the system of health care insurance in the US is based primarily upon employment...or expensive personal insurance, people who would normally not choose to apply for disability seem to be selecting to apply because their alternatives are lousy. Poor or no prospects for new work, an inability to afford medical care ... Plus, enough of them have enough infirmity to convince the authorities that they are disabled (94%) that it suggests previous to the latest dwnturn in 08, many people worked despite having physical problems before loosing their jobs. It strikes me that the well known work ethic of the average American applied then and would apply now, if there were jobs.

It might seem "corrosive" that so many people have seen the need to "game the system". But hell, for working class people the opportunities for this are pretty limited aren't they? They often find themselves paying tax on their low incomes less than millionaires pay, and don't have access to any of the myriad of tax breaks or advantages offered to the investor class...
Plus they've just witness a crash where middle class people lost 60% of their wealth and now the economy has bounced back, Wall street is back to record amounts, the investor class has recouped their lost nut ...but the working and middle class ... are still unemployed, possessing mortgages that are under water and unable to afford college for their kids or decent health insurance.
With thisasthe back ground, I doubt that the "corrosive effect" of a bunch of older Americans claiming disability is really all that powerful ... And, as long as states like Missouri are hiring consultants to urge people off their programs on to federal disability ... the morality of the "choice" seems up in the air. If its okay to council people to do so from a State government, how is it wrong for individuals to apply hoping to qualify?

There isn't enough fraud in this to worry about. There are far bigger problems both fiscally and morally... 17% of the economy is tied up in health care costs, and at the heart of this "fraud problem" is the nature of the health insurance system...
Danivon, being particularly anal, can't follow the logic. Here it is ...simplified:
Forest . Trees.
Its all very interesting to look at a small element of a large problem and distract from solving the larger problem. especially if a culprit can be found to caricature and blame. (The welffare bum, in this case) .
But, solve the larger problems and the problem of "disability fraud" goes away.
One problem behind the fraud increase is a lousy economy, that hasn't rebounded for the working class or middle class yet,. The other is a lousy medical health insurance system.
The "fraud" that some of you complain about is simply the way some poor people are using the current system to deal with how these two problems affect them personally.
They are not corroding the system. It is already corroded. They are trying to cope with a lousy hand they've been dealt.
Its particualrly perverse that some of you want to paint these less fortunate as villains.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 16006
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 09 Apr 2013, 3:41 pm

bbauska wrote:Fair enough. I accept that. It is clear and concise.

Understanding why people are using the system for disability when they are not truly disabled may make for a nice conversation, but needing to put in place some stops on such behavior needs to be addressed. I think we agree on the following:
People can notify the agency of possible fraud
Criminal/civil penalties for fraud (including repayment of all funds)
Removal from program for fraud
Again, all address the fraud, but what it seem DF is talking about is not necessarily outright fraud, but gaming the system, which means following the rules (and so is not criminal, or even civilly actionable).

The question that DF is really raising is a bit more fundamental - does the system itself, or the rules on which it operates, need changing to reduce the number of people eligible.

My position is that if that is done, you need to be able to deal with the consequences, and should ensure that it's not done to the extent that it penalises the wrong people.

Side note:
I feel the same penalties should apply for financial persons gaming the system
People can notify the agency of possible fraud
Criminal/civil penalties for fraud (including repayment of all funds)
Removal of all licenses
You going to rat on geojanes? After all he arranges his affairs to drastically reduce his tax liabilities. Is that the kind of 'gaming the system' you mean?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 16006
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 09 Apr 2013, 3:50 pm

rickyp wrote:Danivon, being particularly anal, can't follow the logic. Here it is ...simplified:
Forest . Trees.
Its all very interesting to look at a small element of a large problem and distract from solving the larger problem. especially if a culprit can be found to caricature and blame. (The welffare bum, in this case) .
But, solve the larger problems and the problem of "disability fraud" goes away.
You see, this is why I tend to only read posts of yours if others refer to them - because you really can come up with some bizarre nonsense.

I am well aware of the larger problem (a lot of people out of work, not many jobs for them - hey, I brought that ratio up!), I am well aware of the context, and I'm not trying to blame people for making decisions that are rational - I don't have much time for people who cheat on welfare, but I have been trying to argue that not all of this is cheating. I talked about making work pay as a means to 'pull' people from welfare, making it easier for people who are on disability to work, etc etc...

I see the trees and the wood.

(but I will accept the charge of being slightly anally retentive)
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7463
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 09 Apr 2013, 4:01 pm

If Geojanes were to commit fraud, yes. (Reason #137 for a flat tax system w/o deductions)
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 16006
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 09 Apr 2013, 4:10 pm

So where do you draw the line between fraud and gaming the system?

And if eliminating fraud is not going to have much effect, what do you think needs to change in the system, if anything?
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7463
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 09 Apr 2013, 7:44 pm

By the criminal line that each state's statutes has.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4991
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 10 Apr 2013, 4:26 am

Taking legal tax deductions is not wrong.

Not reporting your income because you know the IRS is incompetent is breaking the law.

I think we are getting hung up on the phrase "gaming the system".
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 16006
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 10 Apr 2013, 5:10 am

What I am hung up about is the lazy equation of gaming the system with fraud.

If people are following the rules, and are inside the State's law, but are claiming stuff that people don't think they should be entitled to, it is not fraud, and anti-fraud measures will have low impact. However, continually saying that it is the same as fraud appears to ne fair game, even if it stigmatises the genuine claimants (but, hey, they should be both grateful for the taxpayer's largess and ashamed of having to rely on it).

Bbauska - one of the main problems with your definition, basing it on each state's criminal laws is that this is a Federal programme paid for with Federal money. DF and RJ have put the case that as things stand, the states have an incentive to ne lenient because putting people onto disability is a great way of reducing their own benefit liabilities.

The other problems are that each state could have different laws, that the problem is not simply about criminal fraud and that states may not always have the resources to police the laws as effectively as you may wish.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 10 Apr 2013, 7:33 am

This was the original premise offered by DF

I think it goes to show that government can actually take initiative out of its citizens.


That's the broad question isn't it? The question is whether or not the work ethic of millions of Americans have been diminished because a Disability Pension is available... and because there has been a significant rise in its use since the 2008 crash.

And now you guys are arguing about the difference between "gaming the system" and the difference between delivery of a program between a State and the federal government...
Getting side tracked into minutea ...aren't you? (I understand how that appeals to those who admit to being anal retentive..)
There's been zero evidence produced by your picky analysis of the details of the delivery of the program, that suggests that the existence of the disability program is "taking initiative" out of its citizens. But there's been plenty to demonstrate that the system isn't the most efficient or effective way of helping people caught in a miserable circumstance.
If the very existence of the program, is a problem. Then the aternative is to eliminate the program and watch what happens as millions of people fall into abject poverty . A repeat of the conditions of the dirty thirties, no doubt. And a situation that the vast majority of Americans would find intolerable.
If it isn't the existence of the program as intended isn't the problem, then looking at how help like this is delivered more efficiently and effectively is the question. And thats much broader than the details you guys are discussing ..
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4991
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 10 Apr 2013, 7:37 am

Ricky:
There's been zero evidence produced by your picky analysis of the details of the delivery of the program, that suggests that the existence of the disability program is "taking initiative" out of its citizens.


Au contraire. There's been anecdotal evidence (Tom's nephew) and statistical evidence (increase in disability levels for people in their 20's, 30's, and 40's). Why do you say zero evidence?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 10 Apr 2013, 7:45 am

Ray Jay wrote:Ricky:
There's been zero evidence produced by your picky analysis of the details of the delivery of the program, that suggests that the existence of the disability program is "taking initiative" out of its citizens.


Au contraire. There's been anecdotal evidence (Tom's nephew) and statistical evidence (increase in disability levels for people in their 20's, 30's, and 40's). Why do you say zero evidence?


And, it should be noted, it's not the mere existence of the program I'm bemoaning, contra Rickyp.

I'm saying when a program explodes like this and there is ample (anecdotal or other) evidence of fraud, the entire program needs to be examined. I did not call for its elimination, but it is obvious that some increased standard has to be imposed.

My Dad worked until cancer basically killed him at age 74. My uncle ran his own business, working every day until he was nearly 79.

These days young people in their 20's can't work because they're "depressed." If the difference was between them starving to death or working, there would be a lot less "depression."
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 10 Apr 2013, 7:46 am

And, no, I'm not suggesting we starve people. I'm saying there are a lot of fakers who have figured out that it's easier to claim depression than it is to bust their butts.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7463
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 10 Apr 2013, 9:01 am

http://mynorthwest.com/174/2246838/Disabilities-plague-Wash-retirees-even-golfers

This is a little bit more anecdotal than Tom's nephew.

Here is the full article:
SEATTLE — On a good day of golf, Ken Brunette will shoot just a few strokes over par. On a bad outing, Odin Rondestvedt will stray into the 100s. Jack Gilbert typically averages a bogey per hole.

While their scores and favorite golf courses may differ, the three men also share a lot in common: They are former Seattle firefighters, deemed disabled by a local board and now drawing tax-free benefits from the state.

Brunette, Rondestvedt and Gilbert are among more than 3,000 Washington state members of an old pension system who have joined in a procession of disability retirements over the years — often due to back ailments. With lenient definitions of what qualifies as a disability and little effort to monitor the ailments, some have gone on to play sports and take other physically demanding jobs with no impact on their benefits.

Nowhere is that trend more apparent than at the Seattle Fire Department, where the extent of the disability plague among that group of firefighters is particularly extreme, especially when compared with neighboring cities, Seattle police officers and even other Seattle Fire retirees who are part of a newer pension system.

More than 88 percent of the Seattle Fire retirees in the so-called LEOFF-1 system are on disability retirement, according to an Associated Press analysis of pension records conducted as part of a two-year investigation of the system. That disability rate rises to 95 percent if you remove a small group of Seattle firefighters who served for more than 30 years, which is around the time when it starts becoming more lucrative for a typical retiree to depart on regular retirement.

By comparison, 57 percent of other LEOFF-1 retirees around the state have received a disability designation. For those who are part of the newer LEOFF-2 system that has stricter rules and more oversight, disability rates statewide plummet to just 9 percent. Only 5 percent of new-system Seattle Fire retirees have a disability designation.

LEOFF-1 workers who retire on duty-related disability automatically get between 50 and 60 percent of their final salary for the rest of their lives, with annual cost-of-living adjustments and no income taxes to be paid. While disability decisions for most government employees in Washington state are made by the same state agency as private sector workers, the LEOFF-1 system has its own network of dozens of local disability boards that make the calls.

Those disability boards, comprised of many fellow members of the LEOFF-1 system, have had little incentive to reject claims or give them further scrutiny.

Bruce Harrell, a city councilman and candidate for mayor who chairs the Seattle Firefighters Pension Board, did not return calls seeking comment. Reached on his cell phone, he declined to talk and abruptly ended a phone conversation with an AP reporter.

Steve Brown, executive secretary of the board, said firefighters have a physically demanding job that wears on the body. Without prompting, Brown argued the disability designations don’t hurt state taxpayers because many who retire on disability in later years have similar or lower benefits than if they’d retired normally.

Perhaps the biggest effect comes from the tax benefits, which hits the federal government. And with more than 3,100 disabled LEOFF-1 pensioners earning a total of more than $131 million each year, the federal government is missing out on a lot of tax revenues.

“The only one losing is the IRS,” said Dan Ward, the retired fire chief in Shelton.

Ward had the option of retiring normally or on disability due to heart problems. Because he had worked for 31 years, he could have done a basic retirement with a benefit around 60 percent of his final salary, but he chose to take a lesser amount through the disability option because the tax benefits would make it more worthwhile.

Ward said some LEOFF retirees over the years have expressed concern about how Seattle officials were handling disabilities. He said it was common chatter among LEOFF-1 veterans that almost everybody who retired from the Seattle Fire Department went out on disability, with much greater frequency than other jurisdictions around the state.

Steve Suedel, one of the few Seattle firefighters to depart without a disability designation in recent years, said colleagues were well aware that some of the doctors used by Seattle firefighters in past years were very lenient, allowing leave and disability designations with little reason.

Disability retirees who worked at Seattle Fire gave a range of reasons to depart the job, according to an AP analysis of records obtained under public records laws. Some left for extreme medical problems such as cancer or heart attacks. Others left for “exhaustion” or anxiety. One got a disability designation due to diabetes. Another did for alcoholism.

More than half of the Seattle Fire disability retirees received their designations due to back problems, according to AP’s analysis. The most common was deemed “degenerative disease of the spine,” a common problem of aging.

Jack Dennerlein, an adjunct professor of ergonomics and safety at the Harvard School of Public Health, said some of the most dangerous U.S. occupations include NFL players and bicycle messengers. Those fields may see about half of their workers take temporary disability leave each year — many times higher than a typical 3 percent rate. Those numbers only account for temporary disabilities, and Dennerlein said chronic, long-term disability rates are even lower.

The 88 percent rate of disability retirements among Seattle Fire pensioners is exceptionally high, he said.

“That seems off the charts,” Dennerlein said.

LEOFF-1 and “left out” systems

State disability laws have created a wide chasm between firefighters and law enforcement officers who started work in the LEOFF-1 system — short for Law Enforcement Officers’ and Fire Fighters’ Retirement System Plan 1 — and those who came after the system closed to new members in 1977.

Hoquiam Fire Chief Paul Dean, who started working shortly after LEOFF-1 was closed, said some members of the LEOFF-2 system have nicknamed it “left out.” Here are key differences between the two plans:

— LEOFF-1 workers can gain a disability designation if they can no longer perform their job with “average” efficiency. LEOFF-2 workers only get it if they can no longer perform their job at all.

— LEOFF-1 workers qualify for the same disability retirement compensation no matter how their ailment occurred. LEOFF-2 workers who are disabled outside of the job can have drastically reduced benefits.

— LEOFF-1 disability retirees get a benefit of 50 to 60 percent of their final salary, no matter what age the retirement occurs. LEOFF-2 workers have their benefit largely calculated on their years of service, meaning the benefit can be much lower.

— LEOFF-1 workers who are older than 491/2 years no longer have to face medical examinations by a physician to reassess the disability designation. There is no such age limit in LEOFF-2.

More than 40 percent of Seattle firefighters on disability retired in the five years after reaching that age threshold, with the most common disability retirement age in the department being 50. The most common retirement age for other LEOFF-1 pensioners is 65.

While other disabled workers in the state — both in the public and private sectors — may be scrutinized by dozens of state investigators or private investigators that may place them under surveillance, that doesn’t happen for LEOFF-1 retirees. Brown, the executive secretary of the Seattle Firefighters Pension Board, said there’s nothing in the law that would lead the board to examine retirees or require further medical examinations after age 50.

Steve Nelsen, who worked for the Department of Retirement Systems handling legal matters and now works on the LEOFF-2 board, said it is rare for state officials to pursue follow-up medical examinations for LEOFF-1 retirees. He said such examinations would likely be a waste of time because it was such a low bar for retirees to reach and maintain their disability designation.

“The likelihood that he’s going to perform his job with ‘average efficiency’ is limited — just by virtue of the natural aging process,” Nelsen said.

Still, many disabled retirees in LEOFF-1 have returned to work, sometimes in other government jobs and sometimes in positions that have physical demands.

Robert Bacon, a former police officer in Olympia, retired on disability at age 47 after he got out of his vehicle and, for some reason, fell down. With the help of a clinic that helped fix an apparent nerve problem that impacted his walking, Bacon went two years later to take a job at the Washington State Patrol.

Since his physical limitations had healed, Bacon said he had no problems going through all the training — including defensive tactics — to become a commercial vehicle enforcement officer. He worked for the patrol for more than a decade, with no disruption to his disability benefits and no medical reassessments.

Bacon is now fully retired and enjoys long-distance horseback riding.

At least 422 disability retirees in the LEOFF-1 system later returned to work in other government positions, according to an AP analysis of pension and employment records. An untold number of others worked in the private sector. As long as LEOFF-1 retirees do not work in other LEOFF-1 positions, their disability benefits will not be disrupted.

Other retirees have maintained active lifestyles. Lynda Ring-Erickson, a LEOFF-1 retiree from King County who departed on disability after damage to her Achilles tendon made her incapable of running, recalled one person who retired with a bad knee but continued to play on the county soccer team.

“I thought that was unusual,” Ring-Erickson said.

Brunette, the talented golfer who has retired on disability, declined comment and abruptly ended a phone call with an AP reporter who asked about his post-retirement activities. He golfed on at least eight occasions last month, according to an AP review of his posted score records.

Rondestvedt, who now lives in Moses Lake, said he departed the job with arthritis in his back and has trouble playing golf on some days. He said he’s known a few colleagues — he declined to name people specifically — who he felt abused the disability system, but Rondestvedt said he had no qualms about going out on disability for his ailment.

Gilbert, reached in Arizona after a recent golf lesson, retired on disability in 2004 due to a bad knee. After surgery repaired his knee and a divorce seized some of his pension money, Gilbert said he sought a return to the Seattle Fire Department to earn a paycheck.

Even though his doctor had given Gilbert approval to return to the job, Gilbert said the disability board wanted to put him through further testing. And he said the department wanted him to go through training typically geared for rookies.

Gilbert decided the whole thing wasn’t worth the effort, so he moved on to a private-sector gig.

He ended up delivering refrigerators.