danivon wrote:DF no, a 33% fraud rate is not acceptable. What is? In principle no fraud is acceptable, but in reality you cannot guarantee to eliminate it, just do what you can to limit it and detect it. When it is below 1% it often becomes more costly to chase than to write off. And they do build fraud losses into business plans.

Still, I'm not convinced the fraud rate in disability is 33%. Just that you do have some evidence it could be up to that amount in certain categories.

When it hits less than 1%, I'll stop worrying about it. However, I'd say to all but the most oblivious person, it is clearly more than 1%.

Well, I'd like more on how much it actually is, as opposed to what it could be up to, or estimates based on extrapolating from anecdote or extreme cases.

Then we can get a measure of what solutions might work, perhaps.

Just because something may seem obvious does not mean that it is true, by the way. As I don't live in the US, I can assure you that I am going to be a bit oblivious.

danivon wrote:Well, I'd like more on how much it actually is, as opposed to what it could be up to, or estimates based on extrapolating from anecdote or extreme cases.

Then we can get a measure of what solutions might work, perhaps.

Just because something may seem obvious does not mean that it is true, by the way. As I don't live in the US, I can assure you that I am going to be a bit oblivious.

So, wait, after reading all that you've read, you believe it's *possible* that the fraud rate of Disability may be under 1%?

Is that what you're saying?

I'm saying I want to know what it actually is. If you can't measure it now, how will you know when it hits 1% or whatever target you want?

danivon wrote:I'm saying I want to know what it actually is. If you can't measure it now, how will you know when it hits 1% or whatever target you want?

If I was the President, I would measure it.

Here's the rub: our President does not care how much is spent on anything with the label "government" on it, except defense.

here's a serious problem in thinking. We "know" we have a problem yet until we can fully explore and document it, we should do nothing about it? Instead of making fixes that make sense regardless of how much fraud we do or do not have, we should spend money and time documenting the specifics and then, if we deem it insignificant, we should do nothing and go on as we have been??

I call this analysis paralysis.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/richardfinger/2013/01/14/fraud-and-disability-equal-a-multibillion-dollar-balck-hole-for-taxpayers/

From the article:

The Role Of Fraud

“We know there are individuals who will purposely withhold or fabricate information to collect government benefits they are not entitled to receive”. Those are the words of the Office of the Inspector General from their hearing on “combating disability waste, fraud, and abuse”. The Senate conducted their own investigation which concluded that fully one quarter of all disability insurance claims decisions were flawed, improperly addressing “insufficient, contradictory, and incomplete evidence, thus increasing the chances of rewarding nondisabled persons.”

The Senate conducted an investigation that found 25%. Good enough for me to commence combating fraud.

GMTom wrote:here's a serious problem in thinking. We "know" we have a problem yet until we can fully explore and document it, we should do nothing about it? Instead of making fixes that make sense regardless of how much fraud we do or do not have, we should spend money and time documenting the specifics and then, if we deem it insignificant, we should do nothing and go on as we have been??

Oh, for pete's sake - I already proposed measures to do something about it. I am not saying it's an either-or thing. I'm not denying there is an issue with fraud. For the umpteenth time, stop putting words into my mouth so you can beat them up.

Doctor Fate wrote:If I was the President, I would measure it.

Yeah, sure you would. Interesting that your next line was a swipe at the current president. Tell me, given that your first post observed a rise over a period of 50 years, and we can certainly see that changes to eligibility rules back in 1984 are relevant, why is it only Obama that you get to neener-neener at? Apparently, some half-a-dozen of his predecessors at least could have done something, right?

bbauska wrote:I call this analysis paralysis.

Again, I have proposed measures. You have. RJ has. But before we implement them (and let's be frank, not one of us has the power to implement a single one), we could also look at what - for example - we hope to achieve by them. If we have a target (an amount of fraud we want to get below), then it would help to know where we are starting so as to know how big a deal it really is.

The Senate conducted an investigation that found 25%. Good enough for me to commence combating fraud.

Well, no, they didn't find 25% fraud. They found that a quarter of claims were flawed, which "increas[ed] the chances of rewarding nondisabled persons." That is not the same thing - it means that up to 25% could be fraud, but it could simply be that some (much, most?) is genuine claims that just are not perfectly recorded or backed up.

That Forbes article is a bit hard to read in full - what with this 'charming' line:

Richard Finger wrote:Of the 653,877 souls that departed the program in 2011, 36% departed by being gracious enough to die, while 52% reached retirement age and seamlessly switched to other benefits.

The first part is pretty disrespectful to say the least. The second is interesting, given that I expect that from the very beginning of the scheme most Disability claimants who did not die before 65 would have indeed 'seamlessly switched' to post-retirement benefits. That was indeed the intention back at the beginning - to provide for people who could not work again. If anything the chances are that compared to the 1960s, the number of people who come off the programme by going back into work has gone up considerably.

But hey, I did read it all the way through, snark and sarcasm included. And then I read the comments. Quite interesting they were, too. Several claimed to have found errors of fact in his article, and omissions on how such things as an "Affective Disorder" are tested.

Sure, there are problems with fraud, but exaggerating it won't help much.

Apropos of "Is the safety net too wide"? is it fair that Wal Mart rely on Us government handouts to avoid paying employees a living wage?

It might surprise you to learn that a high percentage of Wal Mart employees regularly apply for food stamps and represent the largest group of Medicaid users...
All while WalMArt fights unionization, denies full time hours to employees and pays minimum wage...
Gaming the system to maximize welfare support, which is what this "fraud" really is .... Is a practice of corporate America. Without a "subsidy" from programs designed to alleviate the effects of poverty, wal-MArt might have to pay a living wage.

In state after state, the largest group of Medicaid recipients is Walmart employees. I'm sure that the same thing is true of food stamp recipients. Each Walmart ‘associate’ costs the taxpayers an average of more than $1,000 in public assistance," Grayson wrote in a Huffington Post column on Nov. 24, 2012.

He doubled down in a subsequent interview with The Young Turks show on Current TV, saying Walmart employees represent "the largest group of food stamp recipients."

Grayson’s spokesman cited a 2004 study called the "Hidden Cost of Wal-Mart Jobs" by the University of California Berkeley’s Labor Center. The study, which Wal-Mart has criticized, analyzed Walmart employees’ use of safety net programs in California.

The researchers found taxpayers paid $86 million a year to subsidize Walmart workers’ wages -- $32 million for health programs and $54 million in other assistance. ("Other assistance" could be food stamps, subsidized housing and school lunches, and use of the Earned Income Tax Credit, which is a tax credit for low- to moderate-income workers.)

The average taxpayer bill per employee was $730 for health expenses and $1,222 for other expenses, researchers found. The totals for other large California retailers totaled $521 for health and $880 for other

Source: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... medicaid-/

Although, according to Harold Myerson in the Washington Post today (4/17), Wal Marts profitability is starting to suffer, because its cost cutting is affecting service delivery and losing customers...

Where is the evidence that Walmart is doing anything wrong? They are paying government mandated minimum wage, and the workers have an agreement with their employer. The people can always "choose" disability...

As I have always said, we should not be subsidizing anyone, corporate or person, foreign or domestic, farmer or student.

Walmart's low prices have helped millions of poor people around the world.

bbauska

Where is the evidence that Walmart is doing anything wrong?

legally they are doing nothing wrong. But the law and the system are an ass when tax payers end up paying for food stamp provision to Wal mart employees because they can't get a living wage at their employer. (Through a combination of low hourly pay and low hours provided)
If you are aggrieved by older manual labourers gaming the disability system this should infuriate you. And its an organized and calculated business strategy. The "fraud" you are up in arms about comes down to doctors helping permanaently unemployed gain a little security and dignity when the jobs have all dried up.
This is taking advantage of labout laws that wal-mart has spent millions lobbying to have written in their favour.


ray

Walmart's low prices have helped millions of poor people around the world

.

The low prices have been sustained by labour practices that are essentially subsidized by American tax payers paying for the food stamps and medicare that WalMart dodges.
And as one of the largest employers in the US Wal Mart has managed, through its employment policies, to keep a large percentage of people "working poor".
Low prices have come with a cost... And the system, if it isn't being defrauded, is certainly being gamed...

You say that the employer is doing nothing wrong legally. You are correct in that, btw. Good job!

An older manual laborer committing (by the definition) fraud, is something that the courts should deal with.

To sum up RickyP's position (Please tell me if I am wrong):
Walmart bad for following the law
Employee not bad for breaking the law.

As I have said before, if a person is legitimately disabled, then the payments should be made. When they are not disabled and are using the program to have income not entitled to, I have a problem with that. Similarly, if Walmart was not paying it's workers minimum wage, I would support legal action against them.

Ray Jay wrote:Walmart's low prices have helped millions of poor people around the world.

Have they? I suppose sweatshops are marginally better than some alternatives, but those people would probably be better of as suppliers if they were paid a fairer rate, had better working conditions and more secure contracts, and the effect on price to US consumers would be pretty limited. Maybe they'd be less competitive, but the race to the bottom on price is not going to work out well for most preople long term.

Henry Ford wanted to ensure that his employees earned enough to buy his product. And that was when the product was a pretty expensive (in terms of average earning power) car. Walmart apparently doesn't want to pay enough for people to be able to buy their basic product, cheap food. Do you think it's right that the government subsidises the food bills for people in work?

And the food is so cheap that their UK subsidiary, ASDA has been one of several retailers caught selling meat labelled as beef but contains horse, some of which (and this is definite in ASDA) has contained 'bute', which is not supposed to go into the human food chain.

You know who really benefits from Walmart's pricing and practices? The Walton family.