Michael Astrue was on the Chris Hayes show on MSNBC tonight arguing with some highly-opionated but poorly informed critic of Social Security disability.I'll try to find a link to the video.
URL for first of two segments. Discussion begins in segment "Deconstructing Jobs Numbers (report of today)" and after a break then the segment continues the Soc Sec discussion.
Charles, that's an excellent description of Mr. Avik Roy, who showed no familiarity with our disability system and seemed to have only talking points to offer. It's was interesting to watch Mr. Astrue in the far background on screen as he held his head in agony as though his brain was about to explode. Mr. Roy had just pointed to the British example of medical exams as means of culling the rolls of the undeserving, and pointed out how that reduced their numbers. I wish Mr. Astrue had gone farther than the answer that he gave, which was to point out that we've been doing CDRs since forever. He could have pointed out that if Mr. Roy's point is that CDRs can reduce the rolls, our use of them for so long shows how well we've managed to keep down the instances of improper awards. That would have strengthened Mr. Astrue's point that "fraud" is "less than 1%".
I think that what is being missed is that the British welfare system has been much more lenient with its rules than the American Social Security system. they have now decided to clamp down, resulting in savings. Our SSA system has been strict all along.
Everyone in the report was poorly informed, and the former commissioner was disingenuous. Yes, SSA does CDR's, but very few, and the only reason SSA says fraud is less than 1% is because they do very little to combat fraud. Indeed, many of SSA's policies and attitudes make fraud easy.
The 11:47 post about fraud is accurate. SSA does almost nothing to prevent fraud and even less to prosecute it. For OIG to accept o case, it has to be a big payday. Meanwhile, the government gets nickel and dimed to death.
The OIG in my area is completely useless. They declined to pursue a case with an overpayment of $100,000 and blatant false statements with documentation. SSA could recoup those funds by dispensing with OIG altogether.
Charles, I think this is it:
ReplyDeleteURL for first of two segments. Discussion begins in segment "Deconstructing Jobs Numbers (report of today)" and after a break then the segment continues the Soc Sec discussion.
http://video.msnbc.msn.com/all-in-/51447845#51447980
"highly opinionated but poorly informed" describes everyone on MSNBC.
ReplyDeleteCharles, that's an excellent description of Mr. Avik Roy, who showed no familiarity with our disability system and seemed to have only talking points to offer. It's was interesting to watch Mr. Astrue in the far background on screen as he held his head in agony as though his brain was about to explode. Mr. Roy had just pointed to the British example of medical exams as means of culling the rolls of the undeserving, and pointed out how that reduced their numbers. I wish Mr. Astrue had gone farther than the answer that he gave, which was to point out that we've been doing CDRs since forever. He could have pointed out that if Mr. Roy's point is that CDRs can reduce the rolls, our use of them for so long shows how well we've managed to keep down the instances of improper awards. That would have strengthened Mr. Astrue's point that "fraud" is "less than 1%".
ReplyDeleteI think that what is being missed is that the British welfare system has been much more lenient with its rules than the American Social Security system. they have now decided to clamp down, resulting in savings. Our SSA system has been strict all along.
ReplyDeleteEveryone in the report was poorly informed, and the former commissioner was disingenuous. Yes, SSA does CDR's, but very few, and the only reason SSA says fraud is less than 1% is because they do very little to combat fraud. Indeed, many of SSA's policies and attitudes make fraud easy.
ReplyDeleteThe 11:47 post about fraud is accurate. SSA does almost nothing to prevent fraud and even less to prosecute it. For OIG to accept o case, it has to be a big payday. Meanwhile, the government gets nickel and dimed to death.
ReplyDeleteright...I've reported fraud on numerous occasions. Looking at the stats in my area, the only ones that get followed up on are $50k or more.
ReplyDeleteThe OIG in my area is completely useless. They declined to pursue a case with an overpayment of $100,000 and blatant false statements with documentation. SSA could recoup those funds by dispensing with OIG altogether.
ReplyDelete