Food Stamp Fraud

[G8trGr8t]

Since admins decided the other thread should be closed because they did not like the source or the story or one of the quotes or who the heck knows why, perhaps this one can remain open since it is direct from NBC news.

An Illinois grocer was sentenced to two-and-a-half years in federal prison Monday for defrauding government and nutrition programs.

Khaled Saleh, 48, the owner of Sunset Food Market in Waukegan was charged with illegally exchanging cash with customers using food stamp cards and nutrition coupons during an undercover investigation.

Saleh was sentenced to 30 months in prison by U.S. District Judge Charles Norgle.

Saleh, along with his wife, Fatima Saleh, 37, acquired more than $844,000 by paying customers approximately half the value in cash for goods purchased at other stores using their benefits.


http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/26/17097655-grocer-gets-25-year-sentence-for-844000-food-stamp-fraud?lite=

And this is the tip of the iceberg, this happens every day in every town in this country.

[gatornana]

There's been fraud in gov programs for decades.....medicare, medicaid, welfare. As we move toward handing over programs like education and prisons to private, for-profits, expect more fraud.

[PSGator66]

The more government programs involving these types of programs the more fraud we shall have. Can't wait to see how some work the Obamacare.

[gatornana]

The more government programs involving these types of programs the more fraud we shall have. Can't wait to see how some work the Obamacare.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/10/01/jp-morgan-s-food-stamp-empire.html

[enviroGator]

I think it should go back to how it was when I was growing up (FTR we did not get it), where they gave the people food rather than money to buy food. Less room for fraud, and it made people feel bad about being on gov. support.

I agree with safety net programs, but think they should be just enough to keep the people alive and healthy.

If they want more... go get a job and get it.

[gatorman_07732]

There's been fraud in gov programs for decades.....medicare, medicaid, welfare. As we move toward handing over programs like education and prisons to private, for-profits, expect more fraud.

Good excuse, it's obvious the federal government has relaxed standards for welfare and disability. Medicare, Medicaid, and SS should not exist in their current form.

[gatornana]

Good excuse, it's obvious the federal government has relaxed standards for welfare and disability. Medicare, Medicaid, and SS should not exist in their current form.

The topic is fraud.

[GatrHeel]

Good excuse, it's obvious the federal government has relaxed standards for welfare and disability. Medicare, Medicaid, and SS should not exist in their current form.

Do you have a link to support your claim that the federal government "has relaxed standards for" disability?

And are you suggesting that the "relaxation" occurred under the current administration's watch?

[gatorman_07732]

Do you have a link to support your claim that the federal government "has relaxed standards for" disability?

And are you suggesting that the "relaxation" occurred under the current administration's watch?

Well here is one from a California watchdog that should serve as a new example

http://www.calwatchdog.com/2012/09/28/obamas-social-security-disability-policy-busting-calif-general-fund/

The Obama Administration’s loosened eligibility requirements for Social Security Disability have swelled the number of those on Medicaid in California. It is Obama’s relaxed requirements for Social Security Disability — put into place by Obama Administration appointees and coupled with declining federal funds — that is busting the California general fund budget at this time.

This is an increase nationwide

http://www.investors.com/image/WEBdis600.gif.cms

http://news.investors.com/business/042012-608418-ssdi-disability-rolls-skyrocket-under-obama.htm?p=full

Now I was born in the morning but not yesterday morning. You don't get this type of increase without relaxing the system.

A record 5.4 million workers and their dependents have signed up to collect federal disability checks since President Obama took office, according to the latest official government data, as discouraged workers increasingly give up looking for jobs and take advantage of the federal program.

This is straining already-stretched government finances while posing a long-term economic threat by creating an ever-growing pool of permanently dependent working-age Americans.

Since the recession ended in June 2009, the number of new enrollees to Social Security's disability insurance program is twice the job growth figure. (See nearby chart.) In just the first four months of this year, 539,000 joined the disability rolls and more than 725,000 put in applications.

[PSGator66]

Speaking of working the system.............

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/02/25/7k-worth-of-food-stamps-per-person-the-state-where-this-is-happening-might-surprise-you/

[enviroGator]

Well here is one from a California watchdog that should serve as a new example

http://www.calwatchdog.com/2012/09/28/obamas-social-security-disability-policy-busting-calif-general-fund/



This is an increase nationwide

http://www.investors.com/image/WEBdis600.gif.cms

http://news.investors.com/business/042012-608418-ssdi-disability-rolls-skyrocket-under-obama.htm?p=full

Now I was born in the morning but not yesterday morning. You don't get this type of increase without relaxing the system.

Your post shows absolutely nothing about how O did or did not change disability requirements. NOTHING.

And your graph shows that the numbers have climbed at nearly the exact rate that they did through the Bush years, so your comment about "you can't get this kind of change" is obviously wrong or your saying Bush did it too, which I'm pretty sure was not the case.

[Matthanuf06]

Lots of fraud on the front end with false applications

[gatorman_07732]

Your post shows absolutely nothing about how O did or did not change disability requirements. NOTHING.

And your graph shows that the numbers have climbed at nearly the exact rate that they did through the Bush years, so your comment about "you can't get this kind of change" is obviously wrong or your saying Bush did it too, which I'm pretty sure was not the case.

Really? That was provided in my very first link, but instead your eyes gravited on the graph and commented solely based on that

[G8trGr8t]

There's been fraud in gov programs for decades.....medicare, medicaid, welfare. As we move toward handing over programs like education and prisons to private, for-profits, expect more fraud.

so is it your belief that private companies are less effective at locating and minimizing fraud than the gubmnt is? Really?? If the gubmnt offered to pay any private corporation 50% of the fraud they could uncover the companies would be lining up at the gate to cash that check.

Private enterprise is much more efficient than the gubmnt will ever be. They have to be to remain in business. Unless you are too big too fail which seems to be what this gubmnt likes and encourages with their regulatory environment.

[GatrHeel]

Well here is one from a California watchdog that should serve as a new example

http://www.calwatchdog.com/2012/09/28/obamas-social-security-disability-policy-busting-calif-general-fund/



This is an increase nationwide

http://www.investors.com/image/WEBdis600.gif.cms

http://news.investors.com/business/042012-608418-ssdi-disability-rolls-skyrocket-under-obama.htm?p=full

Now I was born in the morning but not yesterday morning. You don't get this type of increase without relaxing the system.


Thanks for the link. It contains this statement:

"It is Obama’s relaxed requirements for Social Security Disability — put into place by Obama Administration appointees and coupled with declining federal funds — that is busting the California general fund budget at this time", and then links to a June 2012 opinion article in Forbes.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2012/06/04/add-disability-to-obamas-anti-jobs-policies/

The Forbes article cites to a study by the "super-non partisan National Bureau of Economic Research" to explain the reasons for the rise in disability.

http://www.nber.org/bah/fall06/w12436.html

Of course, the study -- written in 2006 -- concluded that the "relaxed requirements" were the results of a law passed in 1984.

Got any other links?

And for the record -- I'm certainly not disputing that there's been a rise in people on disability. Nor that there are people currently on disability who should not be.

I do, however, reject the notion that this was the result of the Obama Administration relaxing requirements. Also, before responding with a new link, you may like to know that the most recent Commissioner of Social Security was a Bush appointee. He served from 2007-2013. Prior to that he served as Associate Counsel to both Presidents Reagan and Bush Sr.

[ncgatr1]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/10/01/jp-morgan-s-food-stamp-empire.html

So the increase in the chance of fraud is good for business? I wonder how much of that money JP Morgan is making will offset the billions in fraud created and paid by taxpayers. Nice point.

[gatorman_07732]

Thanks for the link. It contains this statement:

"It is Obama’s relaxed requirements for Social Security Disability — put into place by Obama Administration appointees and coupled with declining federal funds — that is busting the California general fund budget at this time", and then links to a June 2012 opinion article in Forbes.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2012/06/04/add-disability-to-obamas-anti-jobs-policies/

The Forbes article cites to a study by the "super-non partisan National Bureau of Economic Research" to explain the reasons for the rise in disability.

http://www.nber.org/bah/fall06/w12436.html

Of course, the study -- written in 2006 -- concluded that the "relaxed requirements" were the results of a law passed in 1984.

Got any other links?

And for the record -- I'm certainly not disputing that there's been a rise in people on disability. Nor that there are people currently on disability who should not be.

I do, however, reject the notion that this was the result of the Obama Administration relaxing requirements. Also, before responding with a new link, you may like to know that the most recent Commissioner of Social Security was a Bush appointee. He served from 2007-2013. Prior to that he served as Associate Counsel to both Presidents Reagan and Bush Sr.

Yep, Remember this?

Obama Administration illegally guts welfare reform

As The Washington Examiner revealed, “In a quiet move Thursday,” the "Obama administration ‘released an official policy directive rewriting the welfare reform law of 1996.’" Its directive "allows the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to waive the work requirement at the heart of welfare reform. That reform, originally vetoed but later signed into law by President Bill Clinton, is widely viewed as the most successful policy initiative in a generation. Under it, the growth in welfare rolls was reversed and millions of people moved from welfare to work. Despite its success, however, many liberals remain opposed to reform. For example, in the years immediately after passage of the law, Barack Obama himself pledged to do all he could to undo it. Now, he has.” The Heritage Foundation called this action illegal and another sign of an imperial presidency. (This directive gutting welfare reform was issued by HHS after consultation with the White House).

[GatrHeel]

Yep, Remember this?

Obama Administration illegally guts welfare reform


As The Washington Examiner revealed, “In a quiet move Thursday,” the "Obama administration ‘released an official policy directive rewriting the welfare reform law of 1996.’" Its directive "allows the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to waive the work requirement at the heart of welfare reform. That reform, originally vetoed but later signed into law by President Bill Clinton, is widely viewed as the most successful policy initiative in a generation. Under it, the growth in welfare rolls was reversed and millions of people moved from welfare to work. Despite its success, however, many liberals remain opposed to reform. For example, in the years immediately after passage of the law, Barack Obama himself pledged to do all he could to undo it. Now, he has.” The Heritage Foundation called this action illegal and another sign of an imperial presidency. (This directive gutting welfare reform was issued by HHS after consultation with the White House).

Thanks, but I'm asking for something to support your allegation that the current administration has "relaxed" the standards for disability.

Good excuse, it's obvious the federal government has relaxed standards for welfare and disability. Medicare, Medicaid, and SS should not exist in their current form.

Unless, of course, you were decrying the 1984 law passed on Reagan's watch.

[G8trGr8t]

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

1 in 14 workers now on SSDI. More people added to SSDI than jobs created under this administration. 27 pages of mental health issues that could qualify every person in the country permanently disabled if you get the right doctor to support your claim. Political pressure to approve claims to get people off of UE and to lower unemployment percentage is a hard thing to prove but the swelling of the numbers of people on SSDI is a sure tell that cases are being approved easier than ever before.

And the gubmnt is giving people incentive to keep their children dumb so they qualify for SSDI.

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/nicholas-kristoff-social-security-fraud-121012

Many people in hillside mobile homes here are poor and desperate, and a$698 monthly check per child from the Supplemental Security Income program goes a long way - and those checks continue until the child turns 18. "The kids get taken out of the program because the parents are going to lose the check," said Billie Oaks, who runs a literacy program here in Breathitt County, a poor part of Kentucky. "It's heartbreaking."
This is painful for a liberal to admit, but conservatives have a point when they suggest that America's safety net can sometimes entangle people in a soul-crushing dependency. Our poverty programs do rescue many people, but other times they backfire. Some young people here don't join the military (a traditional escape route for poor, rural Americans) because it's easier to rely on food stamps and disability payments. Antipoverty programs also discourage marriage: In a means-tested program like S.S.I., a woman raising a child may receive a bigger check if she refrains from marrying that hard-working guy she likes. Yet marriage is one of the best forces to blunt poverty. In married couple households only one child in 10 grows up in poverty, while almost half do in single-mother households. Most wrenching of all are the parents who think it's best if a child stays illiterate, because then the family may be able to claim a disability check each month. "One of the ways you get on this program is having problems in school," notes Richard V. Burkhauser, a Cornell University economist who co-wrote a book last year about these disability programs. "If you do better in school, you threaten the income of the parents. It's a terrible incentive."

[gatorman_07732]

Thanks, but I'm asking for something to support your allegation that the current administration has "relaxed" the standards for disability.



Unless, of course, you were decrying the 1984 law passed on Reagan's watch.

LOL, Disability welfare
Its all part of the welfare program. When someone claims mental illness because their unemployment runs out they go onto the welfare roles

[G8trGr8t]

does it matter when it started or who is responsible for it? is that your only arguement? how about the fact that it is wasting money or that this proves that there is plenty of room to cut without impacting those that truly meet the qualifications or does none of that matter in your world?

[G8trGr8t]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/13/social-security-disability-benefits_n_1879791.html

WASHINGTON (AP) — Social Security is so overwhelmed by disability claims that some officials are awarding benefits without adequately reviewing applications, potentially adding to the program's financial problems as it edges closer to the brink of insolvency, congressional investigators say in a new report.

In more than a quarter of the 300 cases reviewed by congressional staff, decisions to award benefits "failed to properly address insufficient, contradictory or incomplete evidence." In many cases, officials approved disability benefits without citing adequate medical evidence or without explaining the medical basis for the decision, according to the report by the Republican staff of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations.

In some cases, it appeared that administrative law judges struggling to reduce backlogs didn't take the time to review all the evidence, the report said. The judges are expected to rule on at least 500 cases a year, with one judge deciding an average of 1,800 cases a year for three straight years, the report said.

"The administrative law judges are not looking at the cases because the pressure from Social Security is to get the cases out," said Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, the top Republican on the subcommittee. "I think you could flip a coin for anybody that came before the Social Security commission for disability and get it right just as often as the (judges) do."

[gatorman_07732]

does it matter when it started or who is responsible for it? is that your only argument? how about the fact that it is wasting money or that this proves that there is plenty of room to cut without impacting those that truly meet the qualifications or does none of that matter in your world?

When an argument can't be defended these are the games that are played. Obama has relaxes welfare requirements and its absolutely undeniable. It's up across the board

[GatrHeel]

does it matter when it started or who is responsible for it? is that your only arguement? how about the fact that it is wasting money or that this proves that there is plenty of room to cut without impacting those that truly meet the qualifications or does none of that matter in your world?

Kind of. If gatorman had posted something like your diatribe, I don't think I would have responded. But his position that the Obama Administration relaxed the requirements for disability hasn't been supported just yet. The closest he's come is

LOL, Disability welfare
Its all part of the welfare program. When someone claims mental illness because their unemployment runs out they go onto the welfare roles

Which makes it clear he believes that welfare is the same as disability. Of course he's categorically incorrect. I'm assuming you won't correct him, but maybe he'll stumble upon some article (or google search with "difference between welfare and disability") that might.

[GatrHeel]

When an argument can't be defended these are the games that are played. Obama has relaxes welfare requirements and its absolutely undeniable. It's up across the board

Could be. I've yet to see anyone say anything contrary to your allegation concerning the Obama Administration and welfare. We're talking about disability. Remember?

Good excuse, it's obvious the federal government has relaxed standards for welfare and disability. Medicare, Medicaid, and SS should not exist in their current form.

If you misspoke/mistyped, fine. No problem. It happens. If it is still your belief that the Obama Administration has "relaxed standards" for disability, I'd like to see something to support your assertion.

[G8trGr8t]

see post 22. from the liberal rag no less so you should have no problem with the source.

this economy that 0 is responsible for is pushing more and more people to apply and political forces are pushing for cases to be resolved.

lawyers are running a whole industry of appeakling SSI cases for fee because they know that if they push enough cases up, they will get approved because the numbers are overwhelming the system.

Do you think that there are that many more people that qualify or that there are that many more people that have decided it is the easiest course of action under this administration?

[gatorman_07732]

Could be. I've yet to see anyone say anything contrary to your allegation concerning the Obama Administration and welfare. We're talking about disability. Remember?



If you misspoke/mistyped, fine. No problem. It happens. If it is still your belief that the Obama Administration has "relaxed standards" for disability, I'd like to see something to support your assertion.

Um, does disability welfare mean anything to you?

[GatrHeel]

see post 22. from the liberal rag no less so you should have no problem with the source.

this economy that 0 is responsible for is pushing more and more people to apply and political forces are pushing for cases to be resolved.

lawyers are running a whole industry of appeakling SSI cases for fee because they know that if they push enough cases up, they will get approved because the numbers are overwhelming the system.

Do you think that there are that many more people that qualify or that there are that many more people that have decided it is the easiest course of action under this administration?

Absolutely agree with the bolded. No question it's part of the problem. But again, the issue I have is with laying all of this on the current President.

In 2011, 3,041,500 applications were filed for SSI. In 2008, that number was 2,827,541. In 2001, it was 2,084,828.

I whole-heartedly agree that this is a trend that deserves to be examined. But to claim that it started with Obama is categorically false.

[gatorman_07732]

Absolutely agree with the bolded. No question it's part of the problem. But again, the issue I have is with laying all of this on the current President.

In 2011, 3,041,500 applications were filed for SSI. In 2008, that number was 2,827,541. In 2001, it was 2,084,828.

I whole-heartedly agree that this is a trend that deserves to be examined. But to claim that it started with Obama is categorically false.

Why the sudden large increase? Nobody said anything about putting all the blame on him but certainly he is compounding the problem.

[G8trGr8t]

Absolutely agree with the bolded. No question it's part of the problem. But again, the issue I have is with laying all of this on the current President.

In 2011, 3,041,500 applications were filed for SSI. In 2008, that number was 2,827,541. In 2001, it was 2,084,828.

I whole-heartedly agree that this is a trend that deserves to be examined. But to claim that it started with Obama is categorically false.

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/dibStat.html

applications in 2001 were 1.5 million accoding to the ssa. In 10 years, applications have risen 100%. Another unsustainable gubmnt program stealing from future generations.

[GatrHeel]

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/dibStat.html

applications in 2001 were 1.5 million accoding to the ssa. In 10 years, applications have risen 100%. Another unsustainable gubmnt program stealing from future generations.

First, just to avoid the confusion that would be bound to follow -- your link refers to disabled worker beneficiaries. SSI is a different program, with separate statistics.

But, you've provided a wonderful backdrop for the discussion. The rise in applications is staggering between 2001 and 2011.

I guess you'd agree then that it probably wouldn't be accurate to suggest that the rise in claims is because the Obama Administration relaxed standards for disability?

[gatorman_07732]

The explosion of people receiving government assistance under Obama means nothing....got it. People going from unemployment to disability for emotional distress means nothing....right

[enviroGator]

Really? That was provided in my very first link, but instead your eyes gravited on the graph and commented solely based on that

No, really I based that on reading the article you linked, seeing that it too had absolutely no support for its claims.

No comment on the point that the increase looks to be more or less the same as it has been since Bush I's term?

[enviroGator]

When an argument can't be defended these are the games that are played. Obama has relaxes welfare requirements and its absolutely undeniable. It's up across the board

Someone made an argument that can't be defended... but it ain't me.

I'm not saying there isn't a problem with SS disability, but I also wasn't spouting unfounded claims that it was O's fault.

[GatrHeel]

The explosion of people receiving government assistance under Obama means nothing....got it. People going from unemployment to disability for emotional distress means nothing....right

But, of course, I never said that. You, however, did say this:

Now I was born in the morning but not yesterday morning. You don't get this type of increase without relaxing the system.

while simultaneously linking an article that blamed Obama for "loosening eligibility requirements" for Social Security Disability.

Which wasn't true when it was written. Wasn't true when you linked it. And still isn't true after your backpedaling.

Why the sudden large increase? Nobody said anything about putting all the blame on him but certainly he is compounding the problem.

[gatorman_07732]

But, of course, I never said that. You, however, did say this:



while simultaneously linking an article that blamed Obama for "loosening eligibility requirements" for Social Security Disability.

Which wasn't true when it was written. Wasn't true when you linked it. And still isn't true after your backpedaling.

Seriously? I did not say the problem started with Obama, but it is reaching record levels of particpation under Obama. What about this is unclear to you?

[Matthanuf06]

Obama is POTUS. He runs this ship and is responsible. Entitlements and dependency is way up. Whether or not he directly caused it is irrelevant as he's allowing it to continue.

That's how you know he's okay with it.

And the folks looking for a smoking gun are dreaming.

When it comes to things that will hurt politically, politics is like the mafia. The higher ups want insulation and deniability.

[gatorman_07732]

No, really I based that on reading the article you linked, seeing that it too had absolutely no support for its claims.

No comment on the point that the increase looks to be more or less the same as it has been since Bush I's term?

This does not surprise me that you claim to have read something you clearly haven't.

http://www.calwatchdog.com/2012/09/28/obamas-social-security-disability-policy-busting-calif-general-fund/

The Obama Administration’s loosened eligibility requirements for Social Security Disability have swelled the number of those on Medicaid in California. It is Obama’s relaxed requirements for Social Security Disability — put into place by Obama Administration appointees and coupled with declining federal funds — that is busting the California general fund budget at this time.

From unemployment to disability like a finely tuned machine

[enviroGator]

This does not surprise me that you claim to have read something you clearly haven't.

http://www.calwatchdog.com/2012/09/28/obamas-social-security-disability-policy-busting-calif-general-fund/



From unemployment to disability like a finely tuned machine

So because this site CLAIMS he did it, with no other proof, links showing the exec order or what ever he might have done to make it happen, it is fact?

Doesn't surprise me you have no clue.

[gatorman_07732]

So because this site CLAIMS he did it, with no other proof, links showing the exec order or what ever he might have done to make it happen, it is fact?

Doesn't surprise me you have no clue.

Have you even looked at the link? They are a cali watchdog group and have laid out all the numbers and all sourced. You didn't even open it

[enviroGator]

Have you even looked at the link? They are a cali watchdog group and have laid out all the numbers and all sourced. You didn't even open it

Opened it... read it... didn't see a single source in it. And by source I mean something other than a link to their own sites, a blog, or an op-ed. I'm talking about a link to a document that shows O making a policy statement, or Exec order, or SOMETHING, that shows it hasn't been same o'l some ol' under O as it has been under everyone else since Bush I.

But again, if O is responsible, why is the rate of change basically unchanged since Bush I's term?

Look at your own graph and get real.

Again, I'm not saying there isn't something wrong but I would have a hard time looking at the numbers and seeing where O's policies have affected the increase of people going on disability.

[gatorman_07732]

Opened it... read it... didn't see a single source in it. And by source I mean something other than a link to their own sites, a blog, or an op-ed. I'm talking about a link to a document that shows O making a policy statement, or Exec order, or SOMETHING, that shows it hasn't been same o'l some ol' under O as it has been under everyone else since Bush I.

But again, if O is responsible, why is the rate of change basically unchanged since Bush I's term?

Look at your own graph and get real.

Again, I'm not saying there isn't something wrong but I would have a hard time looking at the numbers and seeing where O's policies have affected the increase of people going on disability.

WOW, you need to look again because you didn't look to well :yes:

[enviroGator]

WOW, you need to look again because you didn't look to well :yes:

Still dodging my question by trying to say I didn't read it.... lame.

[GatrHeel]

WOW, you need to look again because you didn't look to well :yes:

Let's make this easier for you. Unfortunately it has become required.

Can you name one thing President Obama has done to "loosen eligibility requirements" for Social Security Disability?

[gatorman_07732]

Still dodging my question by trying to say I didn't read it.... lame.

I dodge nothing:

Source: California Department of Finance; http://siepr.stanford.edu/publicationsprofile/2455


also the piece is loaded with other sources

[CharlestonGator]

Nana knows gov't is inefficient at preventing fraud--she admitted that in her post ("decades"). She ain't going to admit to the possibility that private enterprise, which has been the backbone of innovation throughout our country's history, could do better at preventing fraud. In fact, she's going to imply (with no proof) that it would only get worse under private enterprise. Thats what happens when you are a devoted team member and blindly support your team even though you admit the current gov't run programs have been littered with fraud for decades. Whats the saying...to keep doing things the same way and expecting different results...................:huh:

Another gov't beauty:
http://www.bankrate.com/financing/retirement/dead-but-still-collecting/?ec_id=cmct_01_comm_PF_image_headline


A 2010 report compiled from government audits and reports by the Government Accountability Office, inspectors general and Congress found that more than $1 billion was sent to more than 250,000 dead people over 10 years.

Read more: http://www.bankrate.com/financing/retirement/dead-but-still-collecting/#ixzz2M2GmsDk0
Follow us: @Bankrate on Twitter | Bankrate on Facebook


so is it your belief that private companies are less effective at locating and minimizing fraud than the gubmnt is? Really?? If the gubmnt offered to pay any private corporation 50% of the fraud they could uncover the companies would be lining up at the gate to cash that check.

Private enterprise is much more efficient than the gubmnt will ever be. They have to be to remain in business. Unless you are too big too fail which seems to be what this gubmnt likes and encourages with their regulatory environment.

[gatorman_07732]

Let's make this easier for you. Unfortunately it has become required.

Can you name one thing President Obama has done to "loosen eligibility requirements" for Social Security Disability?

Right, nothing here about relaxing standards. You ignored my first link that gave proof and if you choose to ignore the huge increase of people receiving government assistance and say they are not encouraging this then I say you are not being honest.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2012/06/04/add-disability-to-obamas-anti-jobs-policies/

I wish to throw the social security disability into the mix of anti-job programs. The disability program is not the creation of the Obama administration, but Obama appointees have set and interpreted its policies for more than three years. Let’s examine their record:

At this time in the election cycle four years ago, 7.2 million workers were on social security disability. Today, the number is 8.7 million – an increase of 1.5 million, or twenty percent. The 1.5 million disability recipients under Obama are “no longer in the labor force.” They are, it appears, safely shelved outside the labor force, which they no longer reenter to potentially swell the ranks of the unemployed.

As disabilities explore new highs, the labor force participation rate (the labor force divided by the working age population) plumbs new lows. Under Obama, an incredible 8.6 million have dropped out of the labor force, 1.5 million of them due to disability. Making disability “the new normal” has contributed almost twenty percent of the declining percentage of Americans available for work.

Why have disabilities increased by 20 percent under the Obama administration? Have Americans have suddenly become less healthy or more accident prone? Under normal conditions, we expect disabilities to rise with the population, which would be a four percent increase, not a 20 percent increase. It should be noted that disability is meant only for long-term health problems. Unemployment insurance and worker compensation are there for short term issues.

A study by the super-non partisan National Bureau of Economic Research explains the reasons for the rise in disability.

First, the Social Security Administration now places more weight on self-reported pain and discomfort, has relaxed the screening of mental illness, and accepts medical evidence from the applicant’s own doctor. The share of awards for mental illness rose from 16 percent in 1983 to one third in 2010, while the share of back pain rose from 13 percent in 1983 to 28 percent. Together they account for more than half of disabilities. Of the 2.7 million workers on disability for mental disorders, 1.7 million have “intellectual and mood disorders.” Even young people can be declared disabled if they get nervous at work or school, have attention deficit disorders, or are not very intelligent.

Second, the application process has been streamlined. Applicants can begin on line, and they are entitled to a free call from a lawyer. Slick law firms specialize in navigating clients through the bureaucratic maze, and their appeals for clients fill the airwaves. If applicant claims are denied, they can appeal to administrative judges, who overturn examiners in half of their cases. Some administrative judges achieved notoriety by never turning down a disability appeal. No wonder. They can be reprimanded and their decisions set aside for “talking down to claimants” or for “lack of respect.” To cite one superior court verdict: “Applicants for social security disability payments, most of whom are truly ill or disabled, are entitled to be treated with respect and dignity no matter what the merits of their respective claims.”

Third, the relative economic attractiveness of disability has increased. The NBER study finds that, for low-income workers, disability (plus Medicare) replaces almost 90 percent of working income. During recessions, wages decline, and workers at or near the minimum wage receive almost as much income through disability as by working. The system itself raises disability claims during recessions.

Disability, as the new normal, is only one factor contributing to slow job growth. Companies will not create jobs if their tax, health insurance, and regulatory costs are not predictable. But a shrinking work force slows down job creation as well. Almost by definition, job creation depends on the number of people wishing to work at wages employers are willing to pay. As fewer people seek employment under prevailing wage and work conditions, the number of jobs shrinks. There may be plenty of minimum wage jobs out there, but if disability is the preferred option, there will be fewer job takers and fewer jobs.

[enviroGator]

I dodge nothing:

Source: California Department of Finance; http://siepr.stanford.edu/publicationsprofile/2455


also the piece is loaded with other sources

As you dodge again.

[gatorman_07732]

As you dodge again.

I have no idea what your talking about. I have offered information upon information and you just want to play games. You're the one that claimed there wasn't a single source in the link and claimed that you opened it, but either way you're being disingenuous.

[enviroGator]

In have no idea what your talking about. I have offered information upon information and you just want to play games You're the one that claimed there wasn't a single source in the link and claimed that you opened it, but either way you're being disingenuous.

The question, several pages back, repeated a few times I have is -

If this is all O's fault as you say, why is the rate of change basically unchanged since Bush I's term?

[GatrHeel]

Right, nothing here about relaxing standards. You ignored my first link that gave proof and if you choose to ignore the huge increase of people receiving government assistance and say they are not encouraging this then I say you are not being honest.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2012/06/04/add-disability-to-obamas-anti-jobs-policies/

Do you understand that this

"First, the Social Security Administration now places more weight on self-reported pain and discomfort, has relaxed the screening of mental illness, and accepts medical evidence from the applicant’s own doctor."

is coming from a paper written in 2006? And that the conclusion was that this shift occurred in 1984?

So we're talking about a relaxation in standards that happened in 1984?

I hate to admit that I really need to ask these questions. I thought we made progress when you admitted that the blame doesn't all fall on Obama. But you swiftly posted to this incorrect "watchdog" link again and started beating your chest and howling like Tarzan. So it's a little unclear.

[gatorman_07732]

The question, several pages back, repeated a few times I have is -

If this is all O's fault as you say, why is the rate of change basically unchanged since Bush I's term?

I answered your question and I said it didn't start with Obama but he is compounding the problme. Perhaps you missed the post

[enviroGator]

I answered your question and I said it didn't start with Obama but he is compounding the problme. Perhaps you missed the post

Must have missed that one.

[gatorman_07732]

Do you understand that this



is coming from a paper written in 2006? And that the conclusion was that this shift occurred in 1984?

So we're talking about a relaxation in standards that happened in 1984?

I hate to admit that I really need to ask these questions. I thought we made progress when you admitted that the blame doesn't all fall on Obama. But you swiftly posted to this incorrect "watchdog" link again and started beating your chest and howling like Tarzan. So it's a little unclear.

You have refused to answer the question in how you explain the explosion of disability under this administration.

[GatrHeel]

You have refused to answer the question in how you explain the explosion of disability under this administration.

Dodge?






:yes:

[enviroGator]

You have refused to answer the question in how you explain the explosion of disability under this administration.

Look at your own chart AGAIN and you will see the last year of Bush II's term was the biggest "explosion". So apparently it was Bush's fault! LOL! I couldn't resist..

[gatorman_07732]

Look at your own chart AGAIN and you will see the last year of Bush II's term was the biggest "explosion". So apparently it was Bush's fault! LOL! I couldn't resist..

I never exempted Bush from being a "compassionate conservative" AKA a moderate liberal but the fact of the matter is we continually are on the rise. He was a big program guy which I never liked. However that said, all the numbers reflected show an obvious explosion under Obama.

[gatorman_07732]

Dodge?






:yes:

Talk about didge, I've been asking you the same question the whole thread