Section 8's now moving into luxury gated community

10/04/2012 01:20:11 PM · #126

Originally posted by Kelli:

Explain the "individuals" part to me. Unless you are talking about individuals who are operating a business.

eta: Considering the companies listed in this article, I'd say private health insurance fraud is just as big... //www.hhs.gov/news/press/2012pres/07/20120726a.html

The individuals had nothing to do with that story. It was just another example. The sad part is that we're only catching the very worst of the worst offenders, and even then I suspect we're only catching a small percent of the total number of the worst.

10/04/2012 01:29:07 PM · #127

Originally posted by BrennanOB:

Originally posted by Cory:
So, what say you, those who think this is a non existent issue... Are you convinced yet? Or do you still think this is basically my imagination?

I don't think there are many people who don't think this sort of fraud as non-existent. The question is how to respond to it. The sort of prosecutions that the story reports are exactly how such criminals ought to be treated in my opinion. There is waste and fraud in any large enterprise be it Medicare or the U.S.Army, yet when Medicare is defrauded some blame the institution itself. If their reaction to 100s of billions in Army waste was to say we ought to get rid of the Army, then at least it would be a consistent reaction.

Too often we hear calls to end government programs what are designed to help Americans in need when waste and fraud are discovered, rather than prosecuting the thieves and fixing the broken parts. Social welfare programs have become the central focus for many during this political season, yet the waste in governmental support for large corporations and institutions (like the armed forces) where there is many times more taxpayer dollars spent, seem not to to be a concern.

We need to spend the money to fix what is wrong, investigate and prosecute fraud and waste and shore up what is working. Destroying programs because they have problems is the simplistic solution, destruction is always cheaper than repair.

Whoa there. You went a bit further than I intended. :)

I've never advocated for getting rid of anything.. I'm advocating for making it much harder to game the system, I'm advocating for working welfare, I'm advocating for making circumstances align such that the working man who is trying hard is given more advantages than the person who is popping out children at an insane rate, I'm advocating for sensible policies that are consistent, like drug testing welfare recipients, just like they test almost anyone who applies for almost any job. No, I'm not advocating throwing the baby out with the bathwater so to speak, but the bathwater is rather rancid at this point, and does need thrown out, and as with any good bathtub, the potential volume of water exceeds the volume of baby. Some water is fine, but it needs to be fresh water, and never too full - the problem today is that our proverbial bathtub is overflowing with (3 generations deep) stale water, and the damned floor is getting wet. (actually, I'm pretty certain it's leaking through to the room below at this point.)

Message edited by author 2012-10-04 13:30:51.

10/04/2012 02:07:01 PM · #128

Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by Kelli:

Explain the "individuals" part to me. Unless you are talking about individuals who are operating a business.

eta: Considering the companies listed in this article, I'd say private health insurance fraud is just as big... //www.hhs.gov/news/press/2012pres/07/20120726a.html

The individuals had nothing to do with that story. It was just another example. The sad part is that we're only catching the very worst of the worst offenders, and even then I suspect we're only catching a small percent of the total number of the worst.

Brennan expressed exactly what I was implying. It's not the people that are on medicare doing the fraud. Why blame them, why penalize them by getting rid of a program that is desperately needed? And if you read my link, it is being addressed.

10/04/2012 02:41:01 PM · #129

Originally posted by Cory:

I'm advocating for sensible policies that are consistent, like drug testing welfare recipients, just like they test almost anyone who applies for almost any job.

Did the four months of Florida's testing recipients of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families influence that opinion at all? Before it was struck down by the court, Florida required drug testing to get on the program and we now have the numbers from those tests.

"TANF applicants. A mere 108 individuals tested positive. To put it another way, only 2.6 percent of applicants tested positive for illegal drugs â�� a rate more than three times lower than the 8.13 percent of all Floridians, age 12 and up, estimated by the federal government to use illegaldrugs."

"The utter absurdity of this law is magnified when you realize how much it cost the state of Florida to run this program. The data released today shows that Florida spent $118,140 reimbursing the overwhelming number of Florida TANF applicants â�� 3,938 to be exact â�� who tested negative for drugs. That is far more than any money saved by the program, at a net cost to the State of over $45,000. And that's only part of the cost to the state to run this program. There are also the administrative costs, staff costs, and, of course, the litigation costs. Furthermore, the testing program didn't deter individuals from applying for help â�� an internal document about TANF caseloads revealed that, at least from July through September, the policy did not lead to fewer cases."

So drug testing may work as some sort of morality police, punishing those who use drugs, but it does not save money. Nor does it discourage applicants. Given the cost of testing ($40 to $100 per test depending on accuracy and number of drugs tested for) I can see no reason for random drug testing. Since President Reagan instituted a policy of drug testing Federal workers drug testing has become all too prevalent, yet it has not made the federal bureaucracy any more efficient, nor saved the tax payers money.

10/04/2012 02:49:04 PM · #130

Originally posted by Kelli:

Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by Kelli:

Explain the "individuals" part to me. Unless you are talking about individuals who are operating a business.

eta: Considering the companies listed in this article, I'd say private health insurance fraud is just as big... //www.hhs.gov/news/press/2012pres/07/20120726a.html

The individuals had nothing to do with that story. It was just another example. The sad part is that we're only catching the very worst of the worst offenders, and even then I suspect we're only catching a small percent of the total number of the worst.

Brennan expressed exactly what I was implying. It's not the people that are on medicare doing the fraud. Why blame them, why penalize them by getting rid of a program that is desperately needed? And if you read my link, it is being addressed.

Ok, sure, fine - you've convinced me that it's just the select few dozen I know personally. smh.

10/04/2012 02:53:36 PM · #131

Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by Kelli:

Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by Kelli:

Explain the "individuals" part to me. Unless you are talking about individuals who are operating a business.

eta: Considering the companies listed in this article, I'd say private health insurance fraud is just as big... //www.hhs.gov/news/press/2012pres/07/20120726a.html

The individuals had nothing to do with that story. It was just another example. The sad part is that we're only catching the very worst of the worst offenders, and even then I suspect we're only catching a small percent of the total number of the worst.

Brennan expressed exactly what I was implying. It's not the people that are on medicare doing the fraud. Why blame them, why penalize them by getting rid of a program that is desperately needed? And if you read my link, it is being addressed.

Ok, sure, fine - you've convinced me that it's just the select few dozen I know personally. smh.

I don't understand what you're saying. How exactly can someone on medicare (which is only for the permanently disabled and the elderly) commit fraud against medicare? Payments are only made to doctors, pharmacies and medical facilities. Payments are not made to the people on medicare.

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

10/04/2012 02:55:09 PM · #132

Originally posted by BrennanOB:

Originally posted by Cory:
I'm advocating for sensible policies that are consistent, like drug testing welfare recipients, just like they test almost anyone who applies for almost any job.

Did the four months of Florida's testing recipients of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families influence that opinion at all? Before it was struck down by the court, Florida required drug testing to get on the program and we now have the numbers from those tests.

"TANF applicants. A mere 108 individuals tested positive. To put it another way, only 2.6 percent of applicants tested positive for illegal drugs â�� a rate more than three times lower than the 8.13 percent of all Floridians, age 12 and up, estimated by the federal government to use illegaldrugs."

"The utter absurdity of this law is magnified when you realize how much it cost the state of Florida to run this program. The data released today shows that Florida spent $118,140 reimbursing the overwhelming number of Florida TANF applicants â�� 3,938 to be exact â�� who tested negative for drugs. That is far more than any money saved by the program, at a net cost to the State of over $45,000. And that's only part of the cost to the state to run this program. There are also the administrative costs, staff costs, and, of course, the litigation costs. Furthermore, the testing program didn't deter individuals from applying for help â�� an internal document about TANF caseloads revealed that, at least from July through September, the policy did not lead to fewer cases."

So drug testing may work as some sort of morality police, punishing those who use drugs, but it does not save money. Nor does it discourage applicants. Given the cost of testing ($40 to $100 per test depending on accuracy and number of drugs tested for) I can see no reason for random drug testing. Since President Reagan instituted a policy of drug testing Federal workers drug testing has become all too prevalent, yet it has not made the federal bureaucracy any more efficient, nor saved the tax payers money.

Well the big joke here is this: //www.urineluck.com/ - So, while you are absolutely right about the 2.5 percent I'm sure, just be very aware that not only does the above product work 100% of the time, but also, methamphetimine, cocaine, and a host of other drugs pass through the body in about 72 hours, so all that figure of yours really means is that about 2.5 percent of the population was so horribly addicted or stupid that they couldn't pass a drug test. Still, great - that's 2.5 percent. $45,000 is a great cost to remove 108 individuals from the system is it? really? so you don't think they get $4,500 worth of services out of the system or more on average?

It's amazing how bad your arguments are.. Why don't you stop it with the bleeding heart liberal bullshit and face reality - people are, by nature, disposed to taking the easiest - most beneficial route - it's hardwired and not something you can blame the people for really, but once you set up a system that rewards being lazy over working hard, then there is a big fricken problem. How hard is this, really?

I've posted stories above about individuals who were busted, I've posted stories about general corruption, and about organized fraud like the most recent link. You simply seem to want to keep your head in the sand, and while it's sad, I recognize I can't fix your willful ignorance.

Sorry about that.

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

10/04/2012 02:56:19 PM · #133

Without looking into it at all Brennan, the numbers quoted don't seem to add up (I'm not blaming you, but probably the source).

$118,140 / 3938 = $30/person. The tests then don't cost between $40 and $100, they seem to cost $30.
$118,140 / 108 = $1094/person. Your break even point for the cost of the test is whether or not you save a thousand bucks on each drug user. I don't have the timeframe this is over. Is this per month? (in which case the average check may not be $1000) Is this over a year? (in which case the average total checks is likely much more than $1000).

Why doesn't the math add up? What am I missing.

EDIT: I'm reading the article after. July to October. Four months. $118,140/108/4= $273. The quote is, "This is more than would have been paid out in benefits to the people who failed the test, Mr. Newton said." Really? The average payout is $273/month? That's crazy. Maybe the problem is not because we're testing but because we're giving people only $275 a month. I think something is wrong with the numbers.

Message edited by author 2012-10-04 15:07:45.

K3Master

Pentax K-3

Pentax D-FA* 70-200mm f/2.8 ED DC AW

10/04/2012 03:23:29 PM · #134

Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by BrennanOB:

Originally posted by Cory:
I'm advocating for sensible policies that are consistent, like drug testing welfare recipients, just like they test almost anyone who applies for almost any job.

Did the four months of Florida's testing recipients of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families influence that opinion at all? Before it was struck down by the court, Florida required drug testing to get on the program and we now have the numbers from those tests.

"TANF applicants. A mere 108 individuals tested positive. To put it another way, only 2.6 percent of applicants tested positive for illegal drugs â�� a rate more than three times lower than the 8.13 percent of all Floridians, age 12 and up, estimated by the federal government to use illegaldrugs."

"The utter absurdity of this law is magnified when you realize how much it cost the state of Florida to run this program. The data released today shows that Florida spent $118,140 reimbursing the overwhelming number of Florida TANF applicants â�� 3,938 to be exact â�� who tested negative for drugs. That is far more than any money saved by the program, at a net cost to the State of over $45,000. And that's only part of the cost to the state to run this program. There are also the administrative costs, staff costs, and, of course, the litigation costs. Furthermore, the testing program didn't deter individuals from applying for help â�� an internal document about TANF caseloads revealed that, at least from July through September, the policy did not lead to fewer cases."

So drug testing may work as some sort of morality police, punishing those who use drugs, but it does not save money. Nor does it discourage applicants. Given the cost of testing ($40 to $100 per test depending on accuracy and number of drugs tested for) I can see no reason for random drug testing. Since President Reagan instituted a policy of drug testing Federal workers drug testing has become all too prevalent, yet it has not made the federal bureaucracy any more efficient, nor saved the tax payers money.

Well the big joke here is this: //www.urineluck.com/ - So, while you are absolutely right about the 2.5 percent I'm sure, just be very aware that not only does the above product work 100% of the time, but also, methamphetimine, cocaine, and a host of other drugs pass through the body in about 72 hours, so all that figure of yours really means is that about 2.5 percent of the population was so horribly addicted or stupid that they couldn't pass a drug test. Still, great - that's 2.5 percent. $45,000 is a great cost to remove 108 individuals from the system is it? really? so you don't think they get $4,500 worth of services out of the system or more on average?

It's amazing how bad your arguments are.. Why don't you stop it with the bleeding heart liberal bullshit and face reality - people are, by nature, disposed to taking the easiest - most beneficial route - it's hardwired and not something you can blame the people for really, but once you set up a system that rewards being lazy over working hard, then there is a big fricken problem. How hard is this, really?

I've posted stories above about individuals who were busted, I've posted stories about general corruption, and about organized fraud like the most recent link. You simply seem to want to keep your head in the sand, and while it's sad, I recognize I can't fix your willful ignorance.

Sorry about that.

And you only ever want to focus on the most negative, outlying horror stories. There's truth in the middle ;)

10/04/2012 03:42:39 PM · #135

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by BrennanOB:

Originally posted by Cory:
I'm advocating for sensible policies that are consistent, like drug testing welfare recipients, just like they test almost anyone who applies for almost any job.

Did the four months of Florida's testing recipients of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families influence that opinion at all? Before it was struck down by the court, Florida required drug testing to get on the program and we now have the numbers from those tests.

"TANF applicants. A mere 108 individuals tested positive. To put it another way, only 2.6 percent of applicants tested positive for illegal drugs â�� a rate more than three times lower than the 8.13 percent of all Floridians, age 12 and up, estimated by the federal government to use illegaldrugs."

"The utter absurdity of this law is magnified when you realize how much it cost the state of Florida to run this program. The data released today shows that Florida spent $118,140 reimbursing the overwhelming number of Florida TANF applicants â�� 3,938 to be exact â�� who tested negative for drugs. That is far more than any money saved by the program, at a net cost to the State of over $45,000. And that's only part of the cost to the state to run this program. There are also the administrative costs, staff costs, and, of course, the litigation costs. Furthermore, the testing program didn't deter individuals from applying for help â�� an internal document about TANF caseloads revealed that, at least from July through September, the policy did not lead to fewer cases."

So drug testing may work as some sort of morality police, punishing those who use drugs, but it does not save money. Nor does it discourage applicants. Given the cost of testing ($40 to $100 per test depending on accuracy and number of drugs tested for) I can see no reason for random drug testing. Since President Reagan instituted a policy of drug testing Federal workers drug testing has become all too prevalent, yet it has not made the federal bureaucracy any more efficient, nor saved the tax payers money.

Well the big joke here is this: //www.urineluck.com/ - So, while you are absolutely right about the 2.5 percent I'm sure, just be very aware that not only does the above product work 100% of the time, but also, methamphetimine, cocaine, and a host of other drugs pass through the body in about 72 hours, so all that figure of yours really means is that about 2.5 percent of the population was so horribly addicted or stupid that they couldn't pass a drug test. Still, great - that's 2.5 percent. $45,000 is a great cost to remove 108 individuals from the system is it? really? so you don't think they get $4,500 worth of services out of the system or more on average?

It's amazing how bad your arguments are.. Why don't you stop it with the bleeding heart liberal bullshit and face reality - people are, by nature, disposed to taking the easiest - most beneficial route - it's hardwired and not something you can blame the people for really, but once you set up a system that rewards being lazy over working hard, then there is a big fricken problem. How hard is this, really?

I've posted stories above about individuals who were busted, I've posted stories about general corruption, and about organized fraud like the most recent link. You simply seem to want to keep your head in the sand, and while it's sad, I recognize I can't fix your willful ignorance.

Sorry about that.

And you only ever want to focus on the most negative, outlying horror stories. There's truth in the middle ;)

Fighting fire with fire... If their head is in the sand, showing them borderline questionable and weak cases won't really serve to strengthen my position would it?

10/04/2012 04:14:58 PM · #136

Originally posted by Kelli:

Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by Kelli:

Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by Kelli:

Explain the "individuals" part to me. Unless you are talking about individuals who are operating a business.

eta: Considering the companies listed in this article, I'd say private health insurance fraud is just as big... //www.hhs.gov/news/press/2012pres/07/20120726a.html

The individuals had nothing to do with that story. It was just another example. The sad part is that we're only catching the very worst of the worst offenders, and even then I suspect we're only catching a small percent of the total number of the worst.

Brennan expressed exactly what I was implying. It's not the people that are on medicare doing the fraud. Why blame them, why penalize them by getting rid of a program that is desperately needed? And if you read my link, it is being addressed.

Ok, sure, fine - you've convinced me that it's just the select few dozen I know personally. smh.

I don't understand what you're saying. How exactly can someone on medicare (which is only for the permanently disabled and the elderly) commit fraud against medicare? Payments are only made to doctors, pharmacies and medical facilities. Payments are not made to the people on medicare.

I've met a host of "Permanently disabled" people, and am good friends with a few even, who are clearly playing the system. Disabled... yeah, except they can out party me any night of the week, maybe it's just because I have a job that forces me to actually get up and do things... Who knows.

I am also aware of several veterans who are 100% disabled... Yet play paintball, and go biking, and even hold a regular job that pays in cash.

Yep. I'm pretty sure that disabled doesn't really mean disabled anymore. I'm not saying all of them are cheating and gaming the system, I'm only saying that a shocking number of these people exist.

Does that make it quite clear " How exactly can someone on medicare (which is only for the permanently disabled and the elderly) commit fraud against medicare".

Oh, and if I come off as bitter, it's because I am, I don't like paying for these abuses. Unfortunately, it's so rampant that there are, as noted, entire families that are classified as disabled, across four generations. I worked for one of these families, they weren't disabled, but they certainly were completely socially inept, and frankly amazingly dumb about basically everything. So at this point, we have now created familial pockets in society that simply are cancerous, they aren't even able to make simple decisions well, and would die almost immediately if there wasn't a rather large support network keeping them going.

Yes, it sounds callous, and perhaps it is, but this phenomenon didn't exist a century ago, and it didn't exist 50 years ago either... It's a new phenomenon, and we really must find a way to deal with it, as we cannot go on supporting this - it's shameful for everyone involved, and the people who are subsisting like this, well... Let's just say I've been in the middle of that enough to know it's not a life I want.

10/04/2012 04:15:51 PM · #137

Originally posted by Cory:

I've posted stories above about individuals who were busted, I've posted stories about general corruption, and about organized fraud like the most recent link. You simply seem to want to keep your head in the sand, and while it's sad, I recognize I can't fix your willful ignorance.

Believe me I feel exactly the same way. The pinpoint focus and searing outrage you seem to have on these stories is impressive to me. You seem to love to find abuse of a very, very narrow band of public policy. I post a story based on the failure of a policy you endorsed and I get back " Why don't you stop it with the bleeding heart liberal bullshit and face reality". Your "last honest man at the bulwark of liberty" rhetoric is getting tiring. It is perfectly obvious our points of view will never align. If you have any facts to dispute the Times article I would love to hear them.

10/04/2012 04:22:30 PM · #138

Originally posted by BrennanOB:

Originally posted by Cory:

I've posted stories above about individuals who were busted, I've posted stories about general corruption, and about organized fraud like the most recent link. You simply seem to want to keep your head in the sand, and while it's sad, I recognize I can't fix your willful ignorance.

Believe me I feel exactly the same way. The pinpoint focus and searing outrage you seem to have on these stories is impressive to me. You seem to love to find abuse of a very, very narrow band of public policy. I post a story based on the failure of a policy you endorsed and I get back " Why don't you stop it with the bleeding heart liberal bullshit and face reality". Your "last honest man at the bulwark of liberty" rhetoric is getting tiring. It is perfectly obvious our points of view will never align. If you have any facts to dispute the Times article I would love to hear them.

Brennan, I apologize for mostly trying to stay on topic in the thread... I recognize that flight of ideas is the DPC standard in /Rant. As far as searing rage... I'm rather pleased to come off as such, although, in truth, I'm almost apathetic on the issue. I just don't bother making half-hearted half-assed arguments. So don't take any of this too personal, as I think I've told you before - for me, this is all meant in good fun and good nature, you can bet I'm smiling while typing every word, no matter how vitriolic they may sound when read.

I've already posted the points which I dispute, and you, in typical DPC fashion, have failed to answer almost every question I've posed. If you're tired of my rhetoric, I can't quite find the words for what I am at your lack of direct answers... Frankly, you might consider politics, you seem to be a master at answering a tangential point, and moving on to what you prefer to talk about.

You'll notice I answer your questions, head on and in detail... I only wish you had the gumption or respect to do the same.

Message edited by author 2012-10-04 16:30:14.

10/04/2012 04:27:08 PM · #139

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

$118,140 / 3938 = $30/person. The tests then don't cost between $40 and $100, they seem to cost $30.
$118,140 / 108 = $1094/person. Your break even point for the cost of the test is whether or not you save a thousand bucks on each drug user. I don't have the timeframe this is over. Is this per month? (in which case the average check may not be $1000) Is this over a year? (in which case the average total checks is likely much more than $1000).

Why doesn't the math add up? What am I missing.

EDIT: I'm reading the article after. July to October. Four months. $118,140/108/4= $273. The quote is, "This is more than would have been paid out in benefits to the people who failed the test, Mr. Newton said." Really? The average payout is $273/month? That's crazy. Maybe the problem is not because we're testing but because we're giving people only $275 a month. I think something is wrong with the numbers.

The 40-100 figure I pulled off an insurance study questioning the $100million cost of drug testing to California's worker comp. system. "The number of drug testing dates of service rose from 4,012 in 2004 to 186,023 in 2011, while the average bill paid for the testing rose to $147.55 last year from $35.51 eight years ago, the study shows."

Im guessing based on what I read that the low savings generated from kicking drug users off the TANF is that it is a supplemental support, and it probably did not trigger a cutting of all benefits (even if it did, I don't think the program would have been able to count those savings in their accounting, as it would not have been money within the program.

If I read it right the study covers a 4 month period.

Message edited by author 2012-10-04 16:36:24.

10/04/2012 04:42:24 PM · #140

Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by Kelli:

Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by Kelli:

Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by Kelli:

Explain the "individuals" part to me. Unless you are talking about individuals who are operating a business.

eta: Considering the companies listed in this article, I'd say private health insurance fraud is just as big... //www.hhs.gov/news/press/2012pres/07/20120726a.html

The individuals had nothing to do with that story. It was just another example. The sad part is that we're only catching the very worst of the worst offenders, and even then I suspect we're only catching a small percent of the total number of the worst.

Brennan expressed exactly what I was implying. It's not the people that are on medicare doing the fraud. Why blame them, why penalize them by getting rid of a program that is desperately needed? And if you read my link, it is being addressed.

Ok, sure, fine - you've convinced me that it's just the select few dozen I know personally. smh.

I don't understand what you're saying. How exactly can someone on medicare (which is only for the permanently disabled and the elderly) commit fraud against medicare? Payments are only made to doctors, pharmacies and medical facilities. Payments are not made to the people on medicare.

I've met a host of "Permanently disabled" people, and am good friends with a few even, who are clearly playing the system. Disabled... yeah, except they can out party me any night of the week, maybe it's just because I have a job that forces me to actually get up and do things... Who knows.

I am also aware of several veterans who are 100% disabled... Yet play paintball, and go biking, and even hold a regular job that pays in cash.

Yep. I'm pretty sure that disabled doesn't really mean disabled anymore. I'm not saying all of them are cheating and gaming the system, I'm only saying that a shocking number of these people exist.

Does that make it quite clear " How exactly can someone on medicare (which is only for the permanently disabled and the elderly) commit fraud against medicare".

Oh, and if I come off as bitter, it's because I am, I don't like paying for these abuses. Unfortunately, it's so rampant that there are, as noted, entire families that are classified as disabled, across four generations. I worked for one of these families, they weren't disabled, but they certainly were completely socially inept, and frankly amazingly dumb about basically everything. So at this point, we have now created familial pockets in society that simply are cancerous, they aren't even able to make simple decisions well, and would die almost immediately if there wasn't a rather large support network keeping them going.

Yes, it sounds callous, and perhaps it is, but this phenomenon didn't exist a century ago, and it didn't exist 50 years ago either... It's a new phenomenon, and we really must find a way to deal with it, as we cannot go on supporting this - it's shameful for everyone involved, and the people who are subsisting like this, well... Let's just say I've been in the middle of that enough to know it's not a life I want.

Then why don't you report these people? You obviously know enough about them if you know they're working under the table. Why don't you direct your full scathing opinion on them directly? Why not report the employers while you're at it for employing people "under the table".

10/04/2012 04:44:50 PM · #141

Originally posted by Cory:

You'll notice I answer your questions, head on and in detail... I only wish you had the gumption or respect to do the same.

As I saw it,
1) You posted that you favored "common sense" approaches like drug testing welfare recipients.
2) I posted an article from the NYTimes that indicated that such testing did not seem to provide the expected results.
3) You posted a link that showed it was easy to beat such tests. You assume that there must be many more times the detected levels of abuse because products to defeat the tests exist.

I see your argument as self defeating, you want drug tests, then say how easy they are to beat.

How on earth can I respond to an argument like that?

Message edited by author 2012-10-04 16:49:44.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

10/04/2012 05:01:22 PM · #142

Originally posted by Kelli:

Because I rank not ratting out friends as being more important than the small portion of the problem they represent. I want the system to change, as I recognize that I can turn people in all day long, and it won't make much difference. Frankly all of them could probably successfully argue their case, which would just cost more in terms of labor and legal costs.

Indeed, I find it telling that you would even suggest such a thing. Are your friends and acquaintances aware that you'd be glad to turn on them for a small reward, and to make no real difference? No wonder people don't tell you the truth and hide reality from you - you'd turn them in. You see, I get to know things because I won't tell anyone, because I won't reveal names or details. That's the reason people will actually confide in me, instead of lying to me out of fear...

I can see how you come by your views, I suspect the same is true of much of your lot.

Message edited by author 2012-10-04 17:01:39.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

10/04/2012 05:03:09 PM · #143

Originally posted by Cory:

... this phenomenon didn't exist a century ago, and it didn't exist 50 years ago either... It's a new phenomenon ...

Begging and cheating have existed (at least) since the dawn of recorded civilization (as have taxes, BTW) ...

10/04/2012 05:04:49 PM · #144

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by Cory:
... this phenomenon didn't exist a century ago, and it didn't exist 50 years ago either... It's a new phenomenon ...

Begging and cheating have existed (at least) since the dawn of recorded civilization (as have taxes, BTW) ...

But there has never been a system that actually rewarded it over hard work for huge groups of people. That is what I'm talking about.

10/04/2012 05:09:37 PM · #145

Originally posted by Cory:

But there has never been a system that actually rewarded it over hard work for huge groups of people. That is what I'm talking about.

Do you know the phrase "bread and circuses"?

"The Emperor Augustus was well aware of this risk and was keen to keep the poorest plebeians happy enough and reasonably well fed so that they would not riot. He began the system of state bribery that the writer Juvenal described as â��bread and circusesâ��.

Free grain and controlled food prices meant that plebeians could not starve, while free entertainment â�� such as chariot races and gladiators in amphitheaters and the Circus Maximus â�� meant that they would not get bored and restless. Bribery it may have been, but it often worked. "

Not to disagree with the notion that rewarding malingerers is a pernicious problem, but it is not a new problem. Some problems are always with us, and will always have to be fought against.

10/04/2012 05:10:03 PM · #146

Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by Kelli:

Then why don't you report these people? You obviously know enough about them if you know they're working under the table. Why don't you direct your full scathing opinion on them directly? Why not report the employers while you're at it for employing people "under the table".

Because I rank not ratting out friends as being more important than the small portion of the problem they represent. I want the system to change, as I recognize that I can turn people in all day long, and it won't make much difference. Frankly all of them could probably successfully argue their case, which would just cost more in terms of labor and legal costs.

Indeed, I find it telling that you would even suggest such a thing. Are your friends and acquaintances aware that you'd be glad to turn on them for a small reward, and to make no real difference? No wonder people don't tell you the truth and hide reality from you - you'd turn them in. You see, I get to know things because I won't tell anyone, because I won't reveal names or details. That's the reason people will actually confide in me, instead of lying to me out of fear...

I can see how you come by your views, I suspect the same is true of much of your lot.

I'm not the one railing against the system. That's you. And I personally don't know anyone "gaming" the system.

10/04/2012 05:14:18 PM · #147

Originally posted by Kelli:

Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by Kelli:

Then why don't you report these people? You obviously know enough about them if you know they're working under the table. Why don't you direct your full scathing opinion on them directly? Why not report the employers while you're at it for employing people "under the table".

Because I rank not ratting out friends as being more important than the small portion of the problem they represent. I want the system to change, as I recognize that I can turn people in all day long, and it won't make much difference. Frankly all of them could probably successfully argue their case, which would just cost more in terms of labor and legal costs.

Indeed, I find it telling that you would even suggest such a thing. Are your friends and acquaintances aware that you'd be glad to turn on them for a small reward, and to make no real difference? No wonder people don't tell you the truth and hide reality from you - you'd turn them in. You see, I get to know things because I won't tell anyone, because I won't reveal names or details. That's the reason people will actually confide in me, instead of lying to me out of fear...

I can see how you come by your views, I suspect the same is true of much of your lot.

I'm not the one railing against the system. That's you. And I personally don't know anyone "gaming" the system.

eta: And what exactly is my "lot"?

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

10/04/2012 05:16:47 PM · #148

Originally posted by BrennanOB:

Originally posted by Cory:
You'll notice I answer your questions, head on and in detail... I only wish you had the gumption or respect to do the same.

As I saw it,
1) You posted that you favored "common sense" approaches like drug testing welfare recipients.
2) I posted an article from the NYTimes that indicated that such testing did not seem to provide the expected results.
3) You posted a link that showed it was easy to beat such tests. You assume that there must be many more times the detected levels of abuse because products to defeat the tests exist.

I see your argument as self defeating, you want drug tests, then say how easy they are to beat.

How on earth can I respond to an argument like that?

1) Which I do. That wasn't a question, but thank you for noting it, as I stand by that.
2) Which has been torn apart in multiple ways, one of which was my question to you "So, while you are absolutely right about the 2.5 percent I'm sure, just be very aware that not only does the above product work 100% of the time, but also, methamphetimine, cocaine, and a host of other drugs pass through the body in about 72 hours, so all that figure of yours really means is that about 2.5 percent of the population was so horribly addicted or stupid that they couldn't pass a drug test. Still, great - that's 2.5 percent. $45,000 is a great cost to remove 108 individuals from the system is it? really? so you don't think they get $4,500 worth of services out of the system or more on average?"
3) It makes it harder, and more expensive, therefore less beneficial, to those who are cheating. The cost/benefit ratio is actually quite good, unless you really don't think the entire lifetime of benefits won't exceed $4,500. And frankly, the entire population doesn't need to be tested. If someone is missing their legs or is seriously physically handicapped, I don't care how much pot they smoke. That's a genuine case of need, and we are obligated to those in that position. If, however, you are on the system, not because you are unable to work physically, but rather, because you have made a set of choices that lead you to the precipice of failure, that's a different game altogether. If you are in a family that has been on the system for generations, it's time for that teat to dry up, if you are able to work and don't, then you should be permanently declared ineligible for assistance. So, test the ones that seem like they could be working, test the high risk cases, target the money to where it will have the greatest impact - no, it won't always be as fair as some other ways would be, I'm sure, but the cost/benefit analysis seems to point to a much more reasonable outcome, since the current system will collapse, and leave everyone without help. Take a look at medical insurance, it's a great example of this sort of system. My premiums are skyrocketing, and it's not because the system is healthy, there are too many cheaters, and scammers, and other crooks - hell, frivolous lawsuits are basically considered to be "The American Way" and a way to fast wealth, viewed as being synonymous with "Hitting the jackpot" There are entire industries built around this. What do I advocate? Take a few more risks, be a little less fair, essentially grow some balls and do the hard, but right thing for everyone. There's gonna be some horrible screaming and whining, and people will probably die. Reality sucks, but that's the whole problem I have, is that we as a society can't seem to embrace the truth that reality really is a very harsh mistress, and that we can't solve every problem, and buffer every person from that reality.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

10/04/2012 05:16:59 PM · #149

Whose cheating do you think costs the government more -- individuals collecting a few hundred bucks to survive (with or without a mind-altering substance), or corporations and professionals who commit tens of billions in Medicare fraud?

The scale of corporate vs individual cheating of the government is mind-boggling ... when politicians refer to "waste, fraud and abuse" they make it sound like patients are getting all this government money, when the vast majority of the cost is (almost certainly) due to lax regulation and enforcement by the government over corporate abusers.

Now, which side is against regulation, and for letting corporations have a freer rein to maximize "profits"?