What are some policies that the welfare system needs?

[ENFerrari]

Hi,
I'm doing a speech on making a policy and I chose welfare reform to be the basis of it. In short, I stated that the welfare system needs to be more strict in order to battle fraud because America's current economy can't handle the burden anymore. I stated that welfare inspectors should check peoples houses on a more regular basis America should have a system in which inspectors should check peoples houses for "luxury" items and other goods which are not supplied by welfare and if any of those goods are found then welfare should be reduced or completely removed. I also added that people on welfare should not be allowed to have more kids on the welfare system after they begin receiving it. Furthermore, I stated that people should only be allowed on welfare if they have a family member currently working and paying taxes. I know its not tech support but you guys are pretty knowledgeable. I don't agree with all of this lol! so sorry if it offends you, I'm just trying to make my speech very narrow-minded and failing to recognize the other side.
Thanks

[menace33]

Hi,
I'm doing a speech on making a policy and I chose welfare reform to be the basis of it. In short, I stated that the welfare system needs to be more strict in order to battle fraud because America's current economy can't handle the burden anymore. I stated that welfare inspectors should check peoples houses on a more regular basis America should have a system in which inspectors should check peoples houses for "luxury" items and other goods which are not supplied by welfare and if any of those goods are found then welfare should be reduced or completely removed. I also added that people on welfare should not be allowed to have more kids on the welfare system after they begin receiving it. Furthermore, I stated that people should only be allowed on welfare if they have a family member currently working and paying taxes. I know its not tech support but you guys are pretty knowledgeable. I don't agree with all of this lol! so sorry if it offends you, I'm just trying to make my speech very narrow-minded and failing to recognize the other side.
Thanks

I'm not trying to be offensive though it may come off that way, but should this post really be posted to this forum? Yes we're all opinionated and will give our two cents but don't you think that might go on a different forum like The Podium (http://slickdeals.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=18)?

[larrymoencurly]

Base your speech on evidence, not uninformed opinions from highly political PhDs working for pseudo think tanks that are nothing but propaganda mills that cherry pick facts that fit thier prejudices. Start with finding information that support or refute your premise that our economy can't handle the burden of welfare, using credible technical sources that don't merely irresponsibly extrapolate current conditions 50 years into the future or are Wells Fargo bank branch accountants who are pretending to be economists. Show both revenue outflows and returns, not just in dollars but also proportion of GDP, both now and in the future. You probably don't have to count 3rd order effects, and I doubt you'll can go even that far or for greater accuracy because this is social science, after all, and you seem to have only a few hours to prepare for your speech. So to be brief, and imagine yourself reporting to Joseph Califano back in the 1960s or 1970s about this matter. Of course you know who Califano is because otherwise you would not have chosen welfare as the subject of your speech. You owe it to your audience to tell them the truth and elighten them, not merely sound good in a superficial cable TV news manner. Always substance over style, truth over propaganda, and don't be afraid to admit that you just don't have nearly enough evidence to support any conclusion.

[beefcake78]

...are Wells Fargo bank branch accountants who are pretending to be economists.
Lol at WF jab

[Count_Chocula]

welfare is people collectin $$$ for sittin on their asses doin nothin, a good example of this would be you sittin on your ass askin for us to do your homework

[fyu]

i think you'll get more answers from "The Podium"

[LordOfChaos]

Having welfare offices "do more checks" is going to cost more in man power. Is that cost going to be less than the cost of the people the kick off welfare?

If you take welfare away from people who have more kids (who are on welfare) basically you are saying "let the newborns starve".

One thing I would like to see is some sort of way to earn your welfare benefits. Of course there is that initial phase where someone who has paid into the system hits hard times and has a right to collect a bit. But for the long term people, there should be work programs or something that will make them say "wow, I am getting $2/hr in welfare benefits, why dont I just get a job and make 4 times that"

[zzyzzx]

Problem with your ideas is that Democrats would never go for it Making people responsible for themselves is not even a consideration for them. This belongs in the Podium. Mods please move.

[zzyzzx]

Having welfare offices "do more checks" is going to cost more in man power. Is that cost going to be less than the cost of the people the kick off welfare?

I think so.

[LordOfChaos]

I think so.
I do too... but for this thread, it would probably be good if the OP had some statistics to back that up.

[zzyzzx]

I do too... but for this thread, it would probably be good if the OP had some statistics to back that up.

No way of getting statistics without doing it.

[Xygonn]

Just reduce unemployment to 26 weeks for the maximum stretch. It's supposed to be a safety net, not something you can live off of long enough to get an associates degree.

[MISHNAH]

If anything, Communists in Europe had a good plan. Everybody (unless you were a child or disabled) had a job doing something! It may only be grounds maintenance or cleaning the streets, but they were provided with a place to live and a salary for their work.

Kept the place clean and crime low haha. As long as people are busy doing something productive, they wont have enough free time to do hood rat stuff with their friends :lol:

[larrymoencurly]

Lol at WF jabActually a jab at a certain poll-leading presidential candidate who's advocating a lame tax plan based on that WF accountant.

Just reduce unemployment to 26 weeks for the maximum stretch. It's supposed to be a safety net, not something you can live off of long enough to get an associates degree.
What would be the effect on GDP and unemployment? Hint: probably not what you think, but that's the kind of information ENFerrari should present in the speech, at a very, very minimum, to prove that he's not just full of fluff.

[idkMyBFFist]

Mandatory random drug testing couldn't hurt.

[brbubba]

If anything, Communists in Europe had a good plan. Everybody (unless you were a child or disabled) had a job doing something! It may only be grounds maintenance or cleaning the streets, but they were provided with a place to live and a salary for their work.

Kept the place clean and crime low haha. As long as people are busy doing something productive, they wont have enough free time to do hood rat stuff with their friends :lol:

Good point! If the government is paying you anyway, why not get some benefit from it. Make them work one or two days a week picking up garbage or something.

Mandatory random drug testing couldn't hurt.

Also agree on that. Although then you would have child services with all these kids and no homes to go to.

[zzyzzx]

I'd like ot see all forms of welfare done away completely. I'd start with getting rid of those taxpayer funded cellhpnones.

[shhaggy]

Be careful that some of your "solutions" are economically feasible and just reasonable in general. How much will it cost to employ people to check up on welfare rolls? Can someone even reasonably know what amounts to a "luxury good"? If a welfare recipient owns a 9 year old Lexus that they keep in meticulous condition, do you consider that a "luxury good"? Can they own any car? What if they live with family or friends for low rent while they're trying to get back on their feet, are the other residents of the home not allowed to own luxury items? If you move back in with your parents after you lose your job, and they offer you low or no rent but no other financial support, does that mean you're ineligible for welfare if they live comfortably? Further, how much will you be willing to spend to employ people to sort out challenges and appeals?

I don't deny that fraud exists, or that it should be targeted, and in general I'm not a fan of welfare altogether. But solutions like you suggest are more emotional than rational, they'll likely end up costing us more. It's important to study all potential outcomes for "solutions", not just what you want to happen. You might end up saving millions by implementing this plan. But this plan might cost you tens of millions to implement. Remember the end goal here is to save money, not to curb fraud at all costs.

[Rebound]

Talk to some families on welfare. Ask them how much they receive, and why, and for how long.

Try contacting your county welfare agency and ask them how people qualify for welfare. Look into the Federal tax rebate paid to low income families, so you can describe the whole picture in your speech.

You don't even need to deliver a conclusion. All I'm saying, really, is that you are not going to get a good grade for stating uninformed opinions. I bet nobody in your class even knows what welfare really is. If you're in a college class, maybe you'll want to include college financial aid as a form of welfare. (Funny how it's not wasteful when it's money you get :) Wikipedia has a lot of articles on the subject that will help you get started.

You will get a good grade if you explain what welfare is, in its many forms, and maybe how much it costs as a percent of your state's revenue. And, I think if you research it and talk to agency people and meet some recipients of welfare, including the disabled, you will reach a very intelligent conclusion. It might be a lot different than what you think right now, but it will be very intelligent. A good teacher is concerned less with your conclusion and more with how you reached it.

Also, avoid making disparaging remarks. It's easier to persuade through compassion than through meanness. There are a lot of truly needy. If your argument t is that we can't afford it, then don't confuse that with opinions if whether people are lazy or not. Because those are different things.

[LivninSC]

welfare is people collectin $$$ for sittin on their asses doin nothin, a good example of this would be you sittin on your ass askin for us to do your homework

True dat :)

Seriously though the OP has put down what many of us already feel. While he kind of mentions this in his "luxury item" check up welfare should also be asset based if you ask me. Wasn't that multi lottery winner collecting unemployment even though he was a multi millionaire. That's just dicked... I'm not saying that someone who has a retirement of $500k shouldn't get unemployment benefits but if you're got $25M stashed away perhaps not. Not necessarily because they have $25M but rather because of all the income that $25M is going to generate them should more than cover their needs, atleast a hell a lot more than the $1k/mo UI is gonna give them.

[Lilian]

Welfare / unemployment benefits can be used for anything... which is really at the core of the problem.

Rather than provide direct financial assistance, the government should provide living space and food, in exchange for labor. This would involve creating large labor camps where people can live and work. Unfortunately, labor camps have been stigmatized throughout history, but this would be a practical way to reduce costs and still help people at the same time.

[shhaggy]

True dat :)

Seriously though the OP has put down what many of us already feel. While he kind of mentions this in his "luxury item" check up welfare should also be asset based if you ask me. Wasn't that multi lottery winner collecting unemployment even though he was a multi millionaire. That's just dicked... I'm not saying that someone who has a retirement of $500k shouldn't get unemployment benefits but if you're got $25M stashed away perhaps not. Not necessarily because they have $25M but rather because of all the income that $25M is going to generate them should more than cover their needs, atleast a hell a lot more than the $1k/mo UI is gonna give them.

Very hard to enforce that. Nobody keeps $25M liquid. What if they have it tied up in assets that can't easily be dissolved? Plus unemployment is not terribly dissimilar from medicare or social security, all of them are programs paid into based on taxation from your income (just because it's not directly taken from your end doesn't mean it's not related, that part is rather arbitrary). Should the elderly rich also not get social security or medicare benefits?

[shhaggy]

Welfare / unemployment benefits can be used for anything... which is really at the core of the problem.

Rather than provide direct financial assistance, the government should provide living space and food, in exchange for labor. This would involve creating large labor camps where people can live and work. Unfortunately, labor camps have been stigmatized throughout history, but this would be a practical way to reduce costs and still help people at the same time.

I feel the exact opposite way. I think that IF we're going to do welfare (and I don't agree that we necessarily must do it), it SHOULD cover everything and anything. Let them buy TVs and cars (not that we should provide them enough money for that, but if that's how they budget their money, so be it). BUT, it has to be for an extremely small amount of time, enough to learn a trade or go to school, and also have it be contingent on that. If we allow welfare for 2-4 years for someone to get a degree, they should certainly get thrown off after 6 months if they quit school. Creating labor camps offering the bare minimum just forces these people to depend on the government dime, that's not the purpose of welfare. The purpose is to get them OFF welfare and contributing back into the system, not to keep them on a bare minimum system forever. To do this, we can't handcuff them while we're doing it by offering only the bare minimum and demanding labor in addition.

[LivninSC]

Very hard to enforce that. Nobody keeps $25M liquid. What if they have it tied up in assets that can't easily be dissolved? Plus unemployment is not terribly dissimilar from medicare or social security, all of them are programs paid into based on taxation from your income (just because it's not directly taken from your end doesn't mean it's not related, that part is rather arbitrary). Should the elderly rich also not get social security or medicare benefits?

Many say yes :D

[WindySummer]

I'm doing a speech on making a policy and I chose welfare reform to be the basis of it. In short, I stated that the welfare system needs to be more strict in order to battle fraud because America's current economy can't handle the burden anymore.Agreed. Welfare for 'people corporations' needs to be reformed b/c our fragile economy can't handle the burden anymore.

I'd like ot see all forms of welfare done away completely.Sweet... start with 'people corporate welfare' since its never been reformed.

[LivninSC]

Indeed.

I'm not necessarily against it but it most definitely could hurt...

http://thefreshxpress.com/2011/09/florida-governor-rick-scotts-plan-backfires/

[Doctor_Wu]

If anything, Communists in Europe had a good plan. Everybody (unless you were a child or disabled) had a job doing something! It may only be grounds maintenance or cleaning the streets, but they were provided with a place to live and a salary for their work.

Kept the place clean and crime low haha. As long as people are busy doing something productive, they wont have enough free time to do hood rat stuff with their friends :lol:

It's fun to do bad things.

[handyguy]

First, you might want to know that Clinton abolished Welfare in '96.

It's nice you're writing about it, but you're 15 years too late.

[WindySummer]

I'm not necessarily against it but it most definitely could hurt...

http://thefreshxpress.com/2011/09/florida-governor-rick-scotts-plan-backfires/Yeah, I edited that out. I'm against it, except maybe in extreme cases. I just put that in there to highlight the hoops some people advocate welfare recipients should have to jump through, while not advocating the same for the recipients of corporate welfare.

[Xygonn]

Actually a jab at a certain poll-leading presidential candidate who's advocating a lame tax plan based on that WF accountant.


What would be the effect on GDP and unemployment? Hint: probably not what you think, but that's the kind of information ENFerrari should present in the speech, at a very, very minimum, to prove that he's not just full of fluff.

GDP would probably go down in absolute terms. That's ok though, because we won't be handing out money to non-producers and weakening the dollar. Of course, desperate workers, those that have no income, also keep inflation in check, because if everyone is employed inflation soars (you have to pay new employees enough to leave a job that is already paying). So in real terms, it's hard to say. Probably still down, because fewer objects will be purchased in total.

Because of the way we exclude discouraged workers, I'm sure the unemployment number as presented by the government would collapse.

How much harder do you think people will look for jobs when they know that the unemployment check isn't coming? I bet people start to go bananas as they reach 90 weeks. I'd like them to go bananas a little sooner. Or maybe take their 6 full months of unemployment as time to construct their own business plan. It's almost impossible to say what the long term effects would be as far as GDP and unemployment unless you actually do it. IOW: Government spending does short term stimulation, if you take it away, the stimulation goes away. In the long term, government stimulation saddles the nation with debt and (eventually) inflation.

[shhaggy]

Many say yes :D

No, many argue with doing away with medicare and social security altogether. Few few actually argue that they should exist and that the rich shouldn't be eligible even after paying into it.

[larrymoencurly]

What would be the effect on GDP and unemployment? GDP would probably go down in absolute terms. That's ok though, because we won't be handing out money to non-producers and weakening the dollar. Of course, desperate workers, those that have no income, also keep inflation in check, because if everyone is employed inflation soars (you have to pay new employees enough to leave a job that is already paying). So in real terms, it's hard to say. Probably still down, because fewer objects will be purchased in total.

Because of the way we exclude discouraged workers, I'm sure the unemployment number as presented by the government would collapse.

How much harder do you think people will look for jobs when they know that the unemployment check isn't coming? I bet people start to go bananas as they reach 90 weeks. I'd like them to go bananas a little sooner. Or maybe take their 6 full months of unemployment as time to construct their own business plan. It's almost impossible to say what the long term effects would be as far as GDP and unemployment unless you actually do it. IOW: Government spending does short term stimulation, if you take it away, the stimulation goes away. In the long term, government stimulation saddles the nation with debt and (eventually) inflation.
If GDP went down because welfare payments were dropped, doesn't that mean those payments actually are productive?

We had higher unemployment in the 1930s, when welfare benefits were far, far more stingy than they have been since the Great Society social programs were introduced. Why did 20% unemployment happen when people had more incentive to work and more risk of actual starvation? And shouldn't the economy have balanced out, with higher unemployment leading to lower wages and encouraging companies to hire workers, as most economists had predicted? (except for the economist who turned out to be right)

[larrymoencurly]

Mandatory random drug testing couldn't hurt.
I'm in favor of it, but Florida it didn't seem to help because so few people failed testing, but it cost the government something like $35 a person (money went to a company partly owned by the governor, the one who pled the 5th Amendment 65 times).

Some of the best ways to reduce welfare are to reduce unemployment (for poor people) and limit campaign contributions (for rich people).

[larrymoencurly]

Welfare / unemployment benefits can be used for anything... which is really at the core of the problem.

Rather than provide direct financial assistance, the government should provide living space and food, in exchange for labor. This would involve creating large labor camps where people can live and work. Unfortunately, labor camps have been stigmatized throughout history, but this would be a practical way to reduce costs and still help people at the same time.
Labor camps worked well during the New Deal with the Civilian Conservation Corps, but that program was only for young single males and was run in a military-like manner. I don't know how well labor camps would work with families, especially when the people in charge hate the poor and anything Jesus taught about compasion, as is the fashion among today's self-described conservatives. I don't have much faith in government programs run by people who don't believe in them.

Almost every idea about welfare has been tried, especially in Wisconsin when Tommy Thompson was Governor, but it seems that many politicians don't learn from experience, or they refuse to be pragmatic.

[derango1]

Labor camps worked well during the New Deal with the Civilian Conservation Corps, but that program was only for young single males and was run in a military-like manner. I don't know how well labor camps would work with families, especially when the people in charge hate the poor and anything Jesus taught about compasion, as is the fashion among today's self-described conservatives. I don't have much faith in government programs run by people who don't believe in them.

Almost every idea about welfare has been tried, especially in Wisconsin when Tommy Thompson was Governor, but it seems that many politicians don't learn from experience, or they refuse to be pragmatic.

While I agree that how labor camps would work out with families is debatable, I don't care what Jesus said. I'm a fiscal conservative. I do hate the poor however. I hate them so much I want them to pick themselves up and do something with their life so they stop mooching off of me. While my motivation may seem selfish, in the end everyone is better off.

[ENFerrari]

welfare is people collectin $$$ for sittin on their asses doin nothin, a good example of this would be you sittin on your ass askin for us to do your homework

The assignments already been turned in...since last week. I just wanted to know if you guys had anything to add.

Problem with your ideas is that Democrats would never go for it Making people responsible for themselves is not even a consideration for them. This belongs in the Podium. Mods please move.

My bad thanks I didn't know about the Podium but now I do.

I think so.

I factored that in...I said that at least it would be creating jobs and giving money to people who actually work for it.

[ENFerrari]

No way of getting statistics without doing it.

I do have some statistics to back it up. They are pretty weak though.

[ENFerrari]

Be careful that some of your "solutions" are economically feasible and just reasonable in general. How much will it cost to employ people to check up on welfare rolls? Can someone even reasonably know what amounts to a "luxury good"? If a welfare recipient owns a 9 year old Lexus that they keep in meticulous condition, do you consider that a "luxury good"? Can they own any car? What if they live with family or friends for low rent while they're trying to get back on their feet, are the other residents of the home not allowed to own luxury items? If you move back in with your parents after you lose your job, and they offer you low or no rent but no other financial support, does that mean you're ineligible for welfare if they live comfortably? Further, how much will you be willing to spend to employ people to sort out challenges and appeals?

I don't deny that fraud exists, or that it should be targeted, and in general I'm not a fan of welfare altogether. But solutions like you suggest are more emotional than rational, they'll likely end up costing us more. It's important to study all potential outcomes for "solutions", not just what you want to happen. You might end up saving millions by implementing this plan. But this plan might cost you tens of millions to implement. Remember the end goal here is to save money, not to curb fraud at all costs.

I don't really hate welfare and I don't like it either. I hate people who abuse it. As far as luxury items I defined it as something which is unnecessary to make a minimal living.

[ENFerrari]

Thanks for your responses I really loved the one about making people clean streets...Its a great alternative but the only bad side is disabled people or people can lie and say they are "mental" Ugh too many counterarguments.

[shhaggy]

I don't really hate welfare and I don't like it either. I hate people who abuse it. As far as luxury items I defined it as something which is unnecessary to make a minimal living.

I don't particularly care how you define it, I asked how you you'd handle specific things. People need cars to get to work. Do they have to drive a beater? What if they got a great deal on a used luxury car and keep meticulous care of it, without having it cost more than what you envision to be a crappy car? A 9 year old Lexus can easily LOOK luxurious after someone bought it on the cheap and put in the work to make it look good. I laid out a few ways that welfare recipients could be associated with "luxury" items without gaming the system and you ignored them all. I hate people who abuse the system too, but what some seem to hate is the mere perception of people who abuse the system. So if they see someone on welfare driving a Lexus or playing with a PS3, they don't particularly care whether it's theirs or how they came across it, they want them off of welfare. I'm not even a big proponent of welfare, and even I think that's stupid. You can't know unless you know practically every detail of their lives, and the manpower costs that you'd need to investigate that would dwarf the fraud.

[larrymoencurly]

While I agree that how labor camps would work out with families is debatable, I don't care what Jesus said. I'm a fiscal conservative. I do hate the poor however. I hate them so much I want them to pick themselves up and do something with their life so they stop mooching off of me. While my motivation may seem selfish, in the end everyone is better off.Prove you aren't like those fiscal conservatives who created the Great Recession and have prevented the Great Recovery. Any statement favorable to Ron Paul will prove that you are one of them.

[Byebye]

Prove you aren't like those fiscal conservatives who created the Great Recession and have prevented the Great Recovery. Any statement favorable to Ron Paul will prove that you are one of them.

Who were the fiscal conservatives that created the Great Recession? Ron Paul?

[zzyzzx]

First, you might want to know that Clinton abolished Welfare in '96.

It's nice you're writing about it, but you're 15 years too late.


It's been renamed. Welfare is more of a generic name for TANF, SSDI, Section 8 housing, taxpayer funded cellphones, taxpayer funded medical care, taxpayer funded daycare, food stamps, etc.

[handyguy]

These days people that collect 'welfare' have to work/train to get their money.

But those on unemployment can sit around & not do anything & collect checks, food stamps, rental asst, Etc. A person on unemployment can collect about 3-4 times what a person on 'welfare' with a child collects. Also should get after the dads to pay child support.

[Anonymouse]

It'd probably be a wise move to first determine what is "Welfare" and what is NOT "Welfare".

Social Security is NOT "Welfare" - it is an INSURANCE program that people paid a premium out of their wages for, in the event they become needy and qualify in their old age or disability.
It also covers their spouses and dependents, just like life insurance would.

Medicare is NOT "Welfare" - it is an INSURANCE program that people paid a premium out of their wages for in the event they become needy and qualify in their old age or disability.
It doesn't even cover spouses or dependents.

MediCAID is a form of "welfare" and ONLY available to the actual poor and needy, like Wally World employees who can't afford health insurance on the pittance Wally World pays them so they can save the money they WOULD have spend on proper health care insurance for their employees - and send it back to Arkansas for the 19 beneficiaries of Sam Walton's estate to divvy up as a part of their $2B annual income EACH.
(A hard number to pin down exactly but vendor payments categorized as "Welfare" is given as $380.9 Billion in 2011. I'm not sure how you lower those numbers much without exposing the entire population to diseases and epidemics. The Public Health expenditure number - CDC and various public health initiatives - are given as only an additional $4.9 Billion for 2011 - a pittance.)

Unemployment Insurance is NOT "Welfare", it's insurance people paid a premium out of their wages to be able to collect in the event of a loss of employment. It has NOTHING to so with "welfare" any more than a life insurance policy is welfare to the widows, widowers, and orphans that death engenders.

Section 8 Housing Assistance is a form of "Welfare", but again, ONLY available to those who pass means testing, not gamers sitting around smoking crack and driving Cadillacs.
($64.9 Billion is direct federal spending in 2011. Toss in community housing grants for development of more housing and that number rises to $84.3 Billion in 2011.)

Food Stamps is also "Welfare" and again, very strictly means tested for ONLY the needy, (and the fraudulent who CLAIM to be needy.)
($107 Billion in 2011)

Old fashioned actual "cash" welfare benefits are extremely limited though there are those who for one reason or another have managed to get around the 24 months consecutively and 60 months lifetime restrictions on it by virtue of their individual state's policies and federal exemptions to those regulations.
That is something people have to take up with their own state legislatures as the federal guidelines are quite clear.
($6.4 Billion in 2011 (http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year_spending_2011USbn_12bs1n_4041#usgs302) - a rather small amount by ANY measure of federal expenditures, which may come as a surprise to many.)

"Welfare" spending, not so easy to categorize as "rampant" or out of control when you stop to REALLY understand it.

[Hawk2007]

"Welfare" spending, not so easy to categorize as "rampant" or out of control when you stop to REALLY understand it.


If only it were solely going to the truly needy...

[Anonymouse]

If only it were solely going to the truly needy...If only.......
If only corporations weren't so greedy that the middle class is quickly disappearing, leaving MORE opportunities for people with no jobs and no future to have nowhere to turn EXCEPT to attempt to squeeze a little bit more out of the system to continue to have a roof over their heads and food in their children's mouths.

You know what the largest source of fraud and corruption is, BY FAR, in the "welfare" system?

CORPORATIONS - set up expressly to defraud Medicare/Medicaid, by people making MILLIONS if not hundreds of millions of dollars per year doing it.
Yet it is the actual poor who are accused of the fraud and theft and those who are responsible for the vast majority of it are running around nearly unhindered and unindicted.
Even when caught the penalties are paltry compared to the damages they inflict on the system and all of us who pay for it.

Talk to me about fraud and welfare cheats when someone decides corporations are people who can ALSO be put in prison or put to death for their crimes.
All the rights and none of the liabilities of person-hood, that is what it means to be a corporation today.

[Hawk2007]

If only.......
If only corporations weren't so greedy that the middle class is quickly disappearing, leaving MORE opportunities for people with no jobs and no future to have nowhere to turn EXCEPT to attempt to squeeze a little bit more out of the system to continue to have a roof over their heads and food in their children's mouths.

You know what the largest source of fraud and corruption is, BY FAR, in the "welfare" system?

CORPORATIONS - set up expressly to defraud Medicare/Medicaid, by people making MILLIONS if not hundreds of millions of dollars per year doing it.
Yet it is the actual poor who are accused of the fraud and theft and those who are responsible for the vast majority of it are running around nearly unhindered and unindicted.
Even when caught the penalties are paltry compared to the damages they inflict on the system and all of us who pay for it.

Talk to me about fraud and welfare cheats when someone decides corporations are people who can ALSO be put in prison or put to death for their crimes.
All the rights and none of the liabilities of person-hood, that is what it means to be a corporation today.



Oh Mouse, now you have to get your kicks in about Corporations and "the Man".

This has all happened before and it will all happen again....

But yeah, there is a great deal of Medi* fraud. Some providers justify it b/c Medi* reimbursement rates, especially Medicare, are so low. Others do it simply to defraud the government and know that they'll get lost in the bureaucracy. That's the risk of any program anytime the government gets its hands on it.

The thing is, I'd bet you a beer and burgers you're aware of 99% of the money that goes in and out of your household (when you take out your wife). But, with the government, so much money comes in and so much money goes out and so many people have their hands in the cookie jar that it becomes an absolute nightmare to make any sense of it.

[Anonymouse]

Oh Mouse, now you have to get your kicks in about Corporations and "the Man".

This has all happened before and it will all happen again....

But yeah, there is a great deal of Medi* fraud. Some providers justify it b/c Medi* reimbursement rates, especially Medicare, are so low. Others do it simply to defraud the government and know that they'll get lost in the bureaucracy. That's the risk of any program anytime the government gets its hands on it.

The thing is, I'd bet you a beer and burgers you're aware of 99% of the money that goes in and out of your household (when you take out your wife). But, with the government, so much money comes in and so much money goes out and so many people have their hands in the cookie jar that it becomes an absolute nightmare to make any sense of it.All the MORE reason why America's health care system should be a single payer system.
Then the ability to track waste and fraud could be expedited much more easily and effectively.

I never understood this idea that a plethora of health care plans was a good idea.
Conservatives especially seem to hold that view based completely on political dogma about "the right to make profit", since NO CEO, not even the village idjut, would think it was a good idea for his corporation to offer health care plans from 300 different insurance companies.
I mean have ANY of them ever stopped to analyze the idea that diverse providers, each with their own billing practices and overheads, is just about the WORST possible way to efficiently run a large endeavor?
300 completing bids is NOT somehow "competitive and holding down costs" when ALL of the bidders looking to get insurance dollars are ALL inefficient to begin with and ALL looking to maximize profits on top of their inefficiency.

ALL of us, corporations included, are suffering so some fat ass can afford B.J.'s under his corner office desk by hookers masquerading as sexataries - all to hold up the outdated ideal that ANYTHING goes in the name of profit.