ray

Wasn't inadequate medical insurance solved by ACA (AKA Obamacare)?

Since we're talking about increases in disability over the last 2 decades, and particularly since 2008, ACA doesn't apply.
However, if it has eliminated the need to defraud the disability program to get insurance, then disability claims should go down as ACA is fully implemented.

The motivation to defraud goes way down doesn't it?

Fraud is a combination of morality, need, and a calculation that you won't get caught. There's no reason not to focus on the latter. If your bet is that disability fraud goes way down once ACA fully kicks in, you are being naive.

wow, Rickyp says fraud is acceptable while Danivon wants to claim if only a full third is committing fraud, that should also be an acceptable rate!? Are you guys serious???

Where did I say that was acceptable, Tom?

I was answering a specific point made by DF about how many claims are genuine.

I am getting tired of the same straw man argument.

Here's a guy worthy of respect who isn't on disability.

http://www.npr.org/2013/04/15/177066741 ... ay-of-work

sorry Danivon, but your reply most certainly made it sound like you were supporting a program that had 1/3 fraud. DF asked what was the bigger problem, your answer simply pointed out that "most" were valid, it sure did seem to indicate support for such a program. No straw man there, you seem to be supporting the program. If I misinterpreted what you said, it was by what you said, how you said it, and based on previous statements. I in no way set up a straw man in the least.

ray

Fraud is a combination of morality, need, and a calculation that you won't get caught. There's no reason not to focus on the latter.

I agree. But there is also a clash of moral choices. A doctor, by their diagnoses, who can offer the alternative of disability OR the near certainty of medical bankruptcy to a patient. Does this doctor exaggerate the extent to which a long term patient is incapacitated to protect that person from the consequences of ill health with no medical insurance or dose the doctor decide that the disability program offers that person a chance to live their life with dignity?

For the last 30 years the US has mandated that everyone who comes to an emergency room must be treated and can't be turned away. For many people, unemployed and without medical insurance, its their only recourse to medical treatment.
The US made that law because the majority saw it to be immoral to turn away people who required help.
Whats so different about the doctor exaggerating the medical complaints of an older worker, with no job prospects in order to get them insurance? He's actually saving the tax payer money by making this choice as the insured patient under medicare will have their needs cared for in a more cost effective manner, and probably more effectively then the patient in the emergency ward.
In effect you've made these doctors the people who have to make moral choices. Since they see the consequences of what happens to people without decent medical insurance every day .... and since they also understand the difference between emergent care and regular care (in terms of cost and effectiveness) I think they probably make the best choices.

However, with the coming implementation of the ACA, perhaps they won't be forced into making these moral choices anymore.

By the way, is the person applying for disability committing fraud if they have a doctor who is willing to diagnose their conditions as a disability?
Or is the doctor committing the fraud?

rickyp wrote:By the way, is the person applying for disability committing fraud if they have a doctor who is willing to diagnose their conditions as a disability?
Or is the doctor committing the fraud?

Both.

bbauska

Both

.

And what of the states hiring consultants to help people on their rolls qualify for federal disability. If they council people to fill out their applications and find lenient doctors ...are they also complicit? Are the state governments that have initiated these programs also complicit?

exactly, both would be guilty of fraud. And when you start suggesting a doctor make non-medical decisions, you now openly support fraud. Disability is simply not supposed to be a choice as you want us to believe, that sir is fraud plain and simple!

to qualify:
http://www.disability-benefits-help.org ... MgodnXoAUA
In order to qualify for SSDI, you must suffer from a permanent condition that prevents you from working.
...not prevents you from working the job you prefer to work, not if you feel like it might be difficult to work, not based on if you have health insurance or not, it is very plain and simple. all these "options" suggested are fraud!

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Which is the bigger danger: excluding the legitimately needy or including the frauds?

In fact, why don't you dig up evidence of the former, as I've provided plenty of the latter?

No need, your own links provide evidence that a majority of claims are genuine. After all, if up to about a third are not, that means at least two thirds are.

Twisted, but very well twisted.

My challenge stands: show me any evidence of people being wrongly denied Disability.

At potentially 1/3 fraud or unneeded help, one might suppose liberals might be a bit embarrassed. Apparently not. Waste/fraud is apparently just fine.

rickyp wrote:Fate, the Mayo clinic now uses PET scans to confirm a diagnoses of depression.
Impossible to fake.
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/medical/IM00356

(Now whether its cost effective to perform a PET scan on disability applicants I don't know.)

Let me break this to you gently: you're incorrect or being dishonest.

Okay, there's another possibility: you don't understand the word "impossible."

Your link does NOT say it provides a diagnosis 100% of the time. And, in fact, this link says a pet scan is a tool, but not definitive. http://thebipolardance.wordpress.com/ca ... tic-tools/

Furthermore, how many "depressed" people on Disability have received pet scans? Is that standard procedure?

Here's an author who says they are not normally given to depression patients. http://books.google.com/books?id=wQ3h2C ... 3F&f=false

So, I don't think a single picture with almost no information carries the argument.

bbauska wrote:

rickyp wrote:By the way, is the person applying for disability committing fraud if they have a doctor who is willing to diagnose their conditions as a disability?
Or is the doctor committing the fraud?

Both.

And, actually, it's a criminal conspiracy to boot.

Thank you, as that was my next point. As for the government worker...

If that person knowingly assists another person to get disability, then the worker is guilty of conspiracy to commit fraud. It takes knowingly assisting, not just having a program.

Do you think it is fraud and conspiracy?