Is the government at fault when someone embezzles from their company? Are you arguing for increased regulation?

 

I'm not arguing against combating fraud here. I'm saying that 1.5% doesn't seem especially high to warrant combating fraud at the expense of legitimate claims. You will never have a zero-fraud system for anything. Obviously, in the health care industry, there are much higher fraud rates and fraud should be combated there.

 

Whatever percentage of your money you are happy to give away, feel free to send it to me. I can even send you pictures of all of the things I would do to enjoy it.

Just like I thought. Nothing compared to the fraud rate.

 

They investigate the claims of fraud they get and only a fraction of the claims come from SSA employees themselves. They rely on citizen-reporting because they do not have access to investigative resources on the scale of the FBI to observe and document every claimant for a period of time.

Whatever percentage of your money you are happy to give away, feel free to send it to me. I can even send you pictures of all of the things I would do to enjoy it.

I'm happy to realize that every system has vulnerabilities and that some will exploit those vulnerabilities. You cannot stop every single possible avenue of fraud because you likely won't even be aware of the nearly limitless possibilities.

 

This is the same mentality used in the physical security industry. You could do a full-body cavity search on every single person entering the airport, but you choose which levels of risk (fraud) are acceptable.

Honestly, what would you like to see done here to reduce the fraud below 1.5%? What is an acceptable level of fraud for you?

I'm happy to realize that every system has vulnerabilities and that some will exploit those vulnerabilities. You cannot stop every single possible avenue of fraud because you likely won't even be aware of the nearly limitless possibilities.

 

This is the same mentality used in the physical security industry. You could do a full-body cavity search on every single person entering the airport, but you choose which levels of risk (fraud) are acceptable.

 

Well except for all of those risks we make the system exclude, much like SSI.

Well except for all of those risks we make the system exclude, much like SSI.

 

That's what is meant by choosing the acceptable risk level--you exclude those outside of that level when designing your security (anti-fraud) plan. For instance, nuclear power plants do not have to design a security plan capable of defending against a full-scale military attack.

 

For SSDI, what would propose as additional anti-fraud measures?

That's what is meant by choosing the acceptable risk level--you exclude those outside of that level when designing your security (anti-fraud) plan. For instance, nuclear power plants do not have to design a security plan capable of defending against a full-scale military attack.

 

For SSDI, what would propose as additional anti-fraud measures?

 

Great looking question that has absolutely no meaning in reality. My expertise on SSI fraud has no bearing on anything. It is a non sequitor.

Well nothing discussed here has any bearing on anything. I was genuinely curious if you had any policies in mind since you believe that a 1.5% level overpayment rate is unacceptable.

Well nothing discussed here has any bearing on anything. I was genuinely curious if you had any policies in mind since you believe that a 1.5% level overpayment rate is unacceptable.

 

Anytime you want to send me $15 out of every $1000 you earn, feel free. I have a big problem with the government wasting my money.

Anytime you want to send me $15 out of every $1000 you earn, feel free. I have a big problem with the government wasting my money.

 

This doesn't actually mean anything. Obviously a 0% overpayment rate is ideal, but it isn't realistically achievable. Just like a 0% fraud rate in insurance, or 0% shrinkage, or 0% embezzlement rates are not achievable. Policies to reduce fraud do not come without associated costs, both in actual dollar costs such as increased staffing and in other costs like denying legitimate claims.

 

There are inefficiencies and fraud and waste in every operation, large and small. Saying that you won't be happy until there's zero fraud tells me that you aren't actually interested in any real, meaningful discussion over problems and solutions.

Edited May 8, 201213 yr by StrangeSox

Anytime you want to send me $15 out of every $1000 you earn, feel free. I have a big problem with the government wasting my money.

Don't you pretty regularly complain about how onerous the rejection processes are for things like OASDI benefits and how high the rejection rates are for initial applications?

This doesn't actually mean anything. Obviously a 0% overpayment rate is ideal, but it isn't realistically achievable. Just like a 0% fraud rate in insurance, or 0% shrinkage, or 0% embezzlement rates are not achievable. Policies to reduce fraud do not come without associated costs, both in actual dollar costs such as increased staffing and in other costs like denying legitimate claims.

 

There are inefficiencies and fraud and waste in every operation, large and small. Saying that you won't be happy until there's zero fraud tells me that you aren't actually interested in any real, meaningful discussion over problems and solutions.

 

SSI already denies most claims the first time. Those numbers already have that built in, so really the instance number is probably something like double.

Reading around today, it seems like this is the first time I've seen much of the world starting to seriously consider the possibility that Greece could leave the Euro and wondering whether the Eurozone could survive it.

JP Morgan had a $2B trading loss yesterday.

 

http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2012...trades-blow-up/

Liberal blogs are all over this because Dimon, JP Morgan's CEO, has been severely critical of the Volcker rule as it is, let alone a strengthened version that would stop this kind of Wall Street Casino.

 

Liberal blogs are all over this because Dimon, JP Morgan's CEO, has been severely critical of the Volcker rule as it is, let alone a strengthened version that would stop this kind of Wall Street Casino.

 

JPM is incredibly stupid for letting their position get out, and then not unwinding it once it did.

JPM is incredibly stupid for letting their position get out, and then not unwinding it once it did.

 

That was the takeaway I read at another blog, can't remember which one though. Any huge position like that that becomes public will get hammered.

 

Is there a pretty short and succinct summary of what sort of societal benefit we get from allowing these types of trades?

Edited May 11, 201213 yr by StrangeSox

That was the takeaway I read at another blog, can't remember which one though. Any huge position like that that becomes public will get hammered.

 

Is there a pretty short and succinct summary of what sort of societal benefit we get from allowing these types of trades?

 

They are funding the overnight credit markets in a simple sense.

Unemployment Rate Without Government Cuts: 7.1%

JP Morgan had a $2B trading loss yesterday.

 

http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2012...trades-blow-up/

 

no big deal. just fire up the bailout presses.

 

no big deal. just fire up the bailout presses.

 

Dude, they'll just "borrow" that from another of their trading partners. Worked when MF went down.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/13/us/huge-...tml?_r=1&hp

 

The state budget shortfall in California has increased dramatically in the last six months, forcing state officials to assemble a series of new spending cuts that are likely to mean further reductions to schools, health care and other social programs already battered by nearly five years of budget retrenchment, state officials announced on Saturday.

 

Gov. Jerry Brown, disclosing the development in a video posted on YouTube, said that California’s shortfall was now projected to be $16 billion, up from $9.2 billion in January. Mr. Brown said that he would propose a revised budget on Monday to deal with it.

 

 

 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/13/us/huge-...tml?_r=1&hp

 

 

This means higher taxes and more stimulus for everyone.

 

The model's working!

This means higher taxes and more stimulus for everyone.

 

The model's working!

You're right, they're doing exactly what you want, cut teachers, cut salaries, cut universities, cut investment, cut health programs, increase spending on putting people in jail, and bam.

 

 

See that giant cut in government? Solved everything. That's why the state's economy is soaring. Cut government and everything comes out roses.

You're right, they're doing exactly what you want, cut teachers, cut salaries, cut universities, cut investment, cut health programs, increase spending on putting people in jail, and bam.

 

 

See that giant cut in government? Solved everything. That's why the state's economy is soaring. Cut government and everything comes out roses.

 

the problem is, even with the cuts, they are spending way too much. If they could, I'm sure the California Democrats would spend even more, but they don't have the money. They are in debt because of a very high unemployment rate and lots of entitlements going around. Too many people, not enough jobs. too much spending.

Edited May 13, 201213 yr by mr_genius