...but that's just a nice anecdote,
pay it no attention

tom

What I would like to see (and it seems to be the same thought for several others at least) is to limit the benefits and rework the entire system. aside from medical conditions, limit the benefits to a certain time, make people work for it, etc. Not a simple handout to all.

really? Ever hear of the Personal Responsibility and Accountability Act?
The bill's primary requirements and effects included:
Ending welfare as an entitlement program;
Requiring recipients to begin working after two years of receiving benefits;
Placing a lifetime limit of five years on benefits paid by federal funds;
Aiming to encourage two-parent families and discouraging out-of-wedlock births.
Enhancing enforcement of child support.

Sound like Gold?
It was passed and has been in effect since 1996.

archduke

Ricky and Dan - Do you guys understand though that while it may be the case that fraud represents a small percentage of the outlay, it causes an emotional response that creates enmity towards those taking public assistance. While the rational mind may understand that, the gut is stronger

.

Sure. And its easier to pick on the myths of what welfare is, then on the reality of welfare too.
And Dan, it sure seems that your law of diminishing returns explanation of the potential return of detecting fraud is similar to what I illustrated with the "retail slippage". Why would you have a hard time discerning that?

At the beginning I said that screaming about welfare fraud and welfare abuse are largely distractions. They are great distractions because they produce a visceral reaction. When Ron Reagan created his Welfare Queen myth he knew this...
Meanwhile, there is no real outrage over the really big fraud and abuse. Why is it that unnecessary tax breaks to oil companies, and to big agra create little reaction, let alone a visceral reaction?
Is it because its hard to put a face on the executive of Tyson? Or Comeco?
Is it because the image most conjure up of the welfare recipient is stereotypical? (The truth: Most welfare recipients are non-black, adult and on welfare less than two years at a time.)
source:
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-welfareblack.htm

danivon wrote:That said to me that you objected to any young men diagnosed with depression getting disability payments. Perhaps you should have qualified your absolutist position somewhat, if it is the case that your position is more nuanced, and that you do accept that some cases, even among men in their 20s and 30s, are genuine and are debilitative, even if only temporarily.

I didn't say it could never happen. I do believe, however, it is over-diagnosed. I do not know precisely how many fraudulent cases of depression there may be, but I also don't believe the doctors know how many genuine cases there are--those symptoms are pretty mushy.

I'm sorry Dan. I have to agree with Ricky here. You just posted a very long post that boils down to eventually the cost to prosecute the amount of fraud happening exceeds the amount lost to the fraud so why bother. It is a perfectly valid position that I actually agree with.

The problem is you are dealing with a cultural meme and they are impossible to discuss rationally.

Ricky, you can only shine a turd so much.
Call it whatever you like, but it isn't working in the least, by the way, you have the name wrong, it is:
"Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act"
and to be honest, it did in fact seem to work for a short time, then the loopholes and ways to work the system were discovered and we slid back. But yes, it indeed shows making things tougher can work, I'm glad you agree with us now, thanks!

Archduke Russell John wrote:I'm sorry Dan. I have to agree with Ricky here. You just posted a very long post that boils down to eventually the cost to prosecute the amount of fraud happening exceeds the amount lost to the fraud so why bother. It is a perfectly valid position that I actually agree with.

Well, to be fair, my 'long post' addressed several points, not just that one, because I wanted to avoid posting three separate posts.

But yes, I was trying to elucidate the point for the benefit of Steve that it's not so easy or cheap to 'eliminate' fraud.

The problem is you are dealing with a cultural meme and they are impossible to discuss rationally.

Ain't that the truth!

GMTom wrote:It is my firm belief that by cutting welfare it would indeed be the kick in the pants many need to get back to work, yes. Getting paid to do nothing is no incentive to work, it's just the opposite and the welfare state has got to come to an end.

A rather simplistic view. If work pays more than welfare (and one key issue is what happens at the margins - if people start to work, but lose $1 for every $1 they earn, it doesn't pay them to get a part-time job), then there is still an incentive. Low wages are just as pernicious as high welfare (and I'm not convinced that US welfare is all that generous).

You may be right that cutting welfare does mean many get into work (although apparently there is a lower than usual number of job openings at the moment, so quite how many jobs there are open I'm not sure). On the flip-side, the side you are ignoring, how many people will it punish? People who are legitimate claimants and who can't get work?

Glib answers are all very well, but how do you actually divide the 'deserving' from the 'undeserving' poor. It's not so easy.

btw, it's funny how it's me that is harping, seems to me that you keep ignoring some important facts and keep asserting you know how things are over here better than I. Face it, you don't so why keep up the charade?

The 'important facts' you talk about are suppositions based on gossip, rather than facts based on well researched data. And you wonder why I don't take it as gospel (I don't ignore it, I just asked you questions about it that you steadfastly refuse to answer).

Do I know everything about the US welfare system? No. But I know a fair bit about ours and about yours, and probably more about yours than you do about ours, and they are not that different (neither are a generous as the continental European systems). The perception among the comfy middle classes differs from the reality of those who claim. Not that there is no truth in the perception, it's just not an accurate picture. As the Archduke says, there is a meme here that can't be challenged, not with rational discourse at least.

Doctor Fate wrote:I didn't say it could never happen. I do believe, however, it is over-diagnosed. I do not know precisely how many fraudulent cases of depression there may be, but I also don't believe the doctors know how many genuine cases there are--those symptoms are pretty mushy.

Here's my guess - the doctors are more likely to be close to being right than you are on a case-by-case basis.

Archduke Russell John wrote:The problem is you are dealing with a cultural meme and they are impossible to discuss rationally.

That's 100% true and yet we have to work to change it. In my opinion we're still all dancing on the razors edge of economic doom and we really really don't have the option anymore to be ruled by gut, anecdote or non fact based ideology of any kind in any area that counts.
So shrugging at this is not an option really.

Doing nothing is not an option. Suggesting the system works is not realistic. Ignoring ones gut, ignoring anecdotes (they are after all real examples) ignoring the obvious simply because there is no statistic that can be used is also equally foolish. The problem is one of ignorance, am I being ignorant that there are some who will get shafted? Certainly not, I know this but just as danivon has pointed out his argument of diminishing returns for catching fraud (I do agree with that) it's the same here, we simply can't point to the small number who get shafted as reason to leave things as they are. A few people will get screwed, we try to avoid that of course but doing nothing is not an option and we need to look at the overall averages not the individual cases (of those I would hope would be few if reworked correctly)

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:I didn't say it could never happen. I do believe, however, it is over-diagnosed. I do not know precisely how many fraudulent cases of depression there may be, but I also don't believe the doctors know how many genuine cases there are--those symptoms are pretty mushy.

Here's my guess - the doctors are more likely to be close to being right than you are on a case-by-case basis.

Since there are no studies to suggest this is true, I'll have to classify this as "anecdotal."

steve

Since there are no studies to suggest this is true, I'll have to classify this as "anecdotal

."

You think you need studies to suggest that the intensive, long and specilized education and training received by individuals who train to be physicians makes them better qualified and more able to accurately diagnose illness in patients than the man in the street? (Represented by you in this debate)

GMTom wrote:Doing nothing is not an option. Suggesting the system works is not realistic. Ignoring ones gut, ignoring anecdotes (they are after all real examples) ignoring the obvious simply because there is no statistic that can be used is also equally foolish. The problem is one of ignorance, am I being ignorant that there are some who will get shafted? Certainly not, I know this but just as danivon has pointed out his argument of diminishing returns for catching fraud (I do agree with that) it's the same here, we simply can't point to the small number who get shafted as reason to leave things as they are. A few people will get screwed, we try to avoid that of course but doing nothing is not an option and we need to look at the overall averages not the individual cases (of those I would hope would be few if reworked correctly)

The problem with this position Tom is that is can be turned around as well. Yes everybody knows somebody who is "working the system". Yes it is very anger inducing to hear about it, espeically when a person works so hard for his/her own. However, you will never get rid of all the people who "work the system" and the number doing so is so small why bother changing anything and shafting people in the process?

GMTom wrote:Doing nothing is not an option.

I agree. I have said that more could be spent on detecting actual fraud (just that there's a limit to what can be achieved), and that the system could well change in regard to how marriage and cohabitation or co-dependency affect claims.

So do not pretend that I am arguing for no change. I'm just arguing that the kind of change you want is not necessarily the right one.

Suggesting the system works is not realistic.

Only concentrating on how people scam the system, and ignoring what is going on with those who are genuine is not realistic either, and doesn't tell us how much the system works.

Ignoring ones gut, ignoring anecdotes (they are after all real examples) ignoring the obvious simply because there is no statistic that can be used is also equally foolish.

I don't 'ignore' your gut (how can I, you repeat yourself in every post?). I challenge your assertion that there are no statistics, or no ways to get hold of them.

The problem is one of ignorance, am I being ignorant that there are some who will get shafted? Certainly not, I know this but just as danivon has pointed out his argument of diminishing returns for catching fraud (I do agree with that) it's the same here, we simply can't point to the small number who get shafted as reason to leave things as they are. A few people will get screwed, we try to avoid that of course but doing nothing is not an option and we need to look at the overall averages not the individual cases (of those I would hope would be few if reworked correctly)

Yes, but here's the thing, and I mentioned it earlier. Which is the greater evil to you? That 10 people who need welfare get it and one who doesn't does? Or that we make sure that the one doesn't get it, but the rule changes mean that one of the genuine claimants can't either.

Basically - what is worse to you, the undeserving receiving welfare, or the deserving losing out?

Or, how much are you prepared to invest in bureaucracy to ensure that the deserving are less likely to lose out?

It's a similar question to one of justice - what is worse, that a guilty man walk free because the system is too set up to protect the rights of the accused, or that an innocent man is jailed because we erode those rights? Both are bad, but which is worse, in your mind?