bbauska wrote: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?

rickyp wrote:Since the implementation of the ACA over the next few years may make cases of fraud in order to receive medicare nonexistent ...its largely moot.

It strikes me that you are all worried about whether or not the law is broken without regard to whether or not the law really works to the benefit of society

Its some law that forces doctors to break it in order to ensure that their patients can receive the medical care they require...

You all sound like the sort that would convict a man for stealing bread to feed his family.

danivon wrote:Which is why, DF, I do not provide evidence - I am talking about a potential issue, an unintended consequence perhaps, not claimimg that the current system excludes genuine disabled people.

Ricky, have you provided any evidence that people are on disability for the medical benefits?

The rapid growth of disability in the last 10 years prior to ACA kicking in, while we have had a relatively consistent healh care policy suggests that this is not the case

Over and over again, I'd listen to someone's story of how back pain meant they could no longer work, or how a shoulder injury had put them out of a job. Then I would ask: What about a job where you don't have to lift things, or a job where you don't have to use your shoulder, or a job where you can sit down? They would look at me as if I were asking, "How come you didn't consider becoming an astronaut?"

rickyp wrote:

Ricky, have you provided any evidence that people are on disability for the medical benefits?

Fates article infers this ....

They also get disability payments from the government of about $13,000 a year.

This isn't great. But if your alternative is a minimum wage job that will pay you at most $15,000 a year, and probably does not include health insurance, disability may be a better option

The rapid growth of disability in the last 10 years prior to ACA kicking in, while we have had a relatively consistent healh care policy suggests that this is not the case

Please explain. Because the source Fate posted documents the increasing numbers of older manual labourers who are qualifying for disability... becsaue they are losing their jobs and they have few if any prospects. (Not the reference to Dr. Timberlake in the article)

The fact that the health care policy was the same is the reason why, when older people lose their jobs from whence they likely get health benefits ..... they need Medicare. Getting health benefits through employment is a crappy system that punishes unemployed people particularly.

However, if they can't afford healthcare, they get free healthcare

The costs of treating the uninsured must often be absorbed by providers as charity care, passed on to the insured via cost shifting and higher health insurance premiums, or paid by taxpayers through higher taxes.[75] However, hospitals and other providers are reimbursed for the cost of providing uncompensated care via a federal matching fund program. Each state enacts legislation governing the reimbursement of funds to providers. In Missouri, for example, providers assessments totaling $800 million are matched — $2 for each assessed $1 — to create a pool of approximately $2 billion. By federal law these funds are transferred to the Missouri Hospital Association for disbursement to hospitals for the costs incurred providing uncompensated care including Disproportionate Share Payments (to hospitals with high quantities of uninsured patients), Medicaid shortfalls, Medicaid managed care payments to insurance companies and other costs incurred by hospitals.[76] In New Hampshire, by statute, reimbursable uncompensated care costs shall include: charity care costs, any portion of Medicaid patient care costs that are unreimbursed by Medicaid payments, and any portion of bad debt costs that the commissioner determines would meet the criteria under 42 U.S.C. section 1396r-4(g) governing hospital-specific limits on disproportionate share hospital payments under Title XIX of the Social Security Act.[77

rickyp wrote:fate

However, if they can't afford healthcare, they get free healthcare

Thee is no such thing as free health care. Tax payers are paying for it.

Fate, you don';t seem to have a problem with this waste....or maybe you are fooling yourself when you say "they get free healthcare".

The point I've been trying to make to you is that if Timberlake puts someone on Disability, they cost less in the health care system then if the get their "free healthcare" through emergency wards...