Your Welfare Dollars at Work

[HFWR]

Ah, USENET... Those were the good old days.

I'd hazard a guess that anywhere and anytime there is money involved, there is fraud, waste, and abuse...

 

[Mulligan]

Great idea, but of course it runs against the bureaucratic imperative, which is to increase budget and headcount without cease.

ha

Unfortunately that happens alot. I ran a summer government work program and came in with all work done over 10% under budget. I thought they would be happy, they were upset because they said the budget would get cut next year, and it was too late to spend the extra money to do anything about it. I didnt get told the rules of the game before I went to work! I know for a fact I could make a good living working for a school, procuring cheaper prices for purchase orders that have been approved to buy and just working on commision of dollars saved.
Governments just arent as ruthless in cost cutting as businesses are. I remember taking a masters degree class in accounting and the business professer ( he was a businessman, not an academic professor) asked a question on how you get the 5% discount for goods paid in full by 20 days of receipt of order, yet you need this money for something else at the immediate time. I remember we all guessed some, but couldnt come up with the answer. He told them the answer is you take the 5% off the bill and pay it two months late anyway. If they complain you tell them to go to hell and if they want your business in the future, you wont say another word about it!

 

[Major Tom]

In the absence of a story with more details, I don't think any of us are qualified to make a judgment on this. These stories about possible welfare cheats are always good for ratings/subscription numbers etc, and are also good at generating long threads in discussion forums, as has been evidenced here.

 

[sheehs1]

May be a bit off topic but might not be. One year for Christmas my brothers, sisters and I decided that rather than give presents to each other we would sponsor a family. My brother contacted social services for the name of a family. We all did our part, bought presents for the parents and children and my brother delivered the gifts Christmas morning. He came back shaking his head. Two relatively new SUV's in the driveway, flat screen T.V., toys galore in the living room. He was asked to hurry up because they were leaving on the Christmas vacation.
We didn't do it again. There are people in need that need help but I am not sure contacting social services was the best route.

 

[haha]

Overall, likely the best plan is to spend the money yourself. At least you know you will enjoy it.

Ha

 

[samclem]

So what percentage of limited resources do you put into trying to prevent/catch that. Seems like there was not enough due diligence done in this case, though.

If you are running a government agency that is tasked to give away money, you put darn little effort into catching cheaters. Why do it? It causes trouble, it results in fewer families helped and less money given out (the metrics by which you are promoted), and it's just not your job. Nor is it your money.

It's like the people who note how little Medicare spends on admin fees and overhead. Well, part of the admin fees and overhead in a real insurance company goes to fraud prevention, and it saves a lot of money. Medicare puts a low priority on this, so we see frequent outrages and waste lots of taxpayer money. But they are "efficient."

 

[ratto]

While fraud certainly exists, I think the fundamental issue is that we have vast numbers of people in this country that don't make a wage sufficient to support a family, and have low prospects of having that change.

Think about all of the people you interact with in businesses day to day. All of the cashiers at Target, Walmart, grocery stores, fast food places, Home Depot, convenience stores, coffee shops, etc. All the telemarketers, all the people working in day care centers, and providing care in homes and nursing facilities.

This requires us willingly to pay more as consumers, to get less from our portfolios as pensioners, etc, etc.

Most of those people are very lucky if they make $10/hr. Most of them do not have health benefits. There are tens of millions of them. If they have children, they probably qualify for SNAP (food stamps). Looking at the math of their situation, I don't feel that most of them are "gaming the system."

Food stamps used to be a program for people who weren't working. The painful fact today is that it is now a program that is used to provide support to people who are working.

This makes any welfare or entitlement program frauds even more outrageous and worse now.

Great idea, but of course it runs against the bureaucratic imperative, which is to increase budget and headcount without cease.

If I give my after tax dollars to some efficient and reputable charities, at least I feel more confident my help will get good and wise use. I can only have good faith when government does it for me, supposedly.

 

[Hamlet]

Of course, part of the overhead in private insurance companies also goes to making it so incredibly painful to file legitimate claims that people eventually just give up and pay them themselves.

My experiences with private health insurance don't exactly make me want to rush out and cancel Medicare.

I've been very happy with my experiences with auto and home insurance though. I expect that that has something to do with actually having a viable competitive insurance market in those areas.

It's like the people who note how little Medicare spends on admin fees and overhead. Well, part of the admin fees and overhead in a real insurance company goes to fraud prevention, and it saves a lot of money. Medicare puts a low priority on this, so we see frequent outrages and waste lots of taxpayer money. But they are "efficient."

 

[Gatordoc50]

Are there no prisons?

 

[MichaelB]

I was wondering if Ebenezer was going to show up.

 

[samclem]

I've been very happy with my experiences with auto and home insurance though. I expect that that has something to do with actually having a viable competitive insurance market in those areas.

+1. And, the more medical insurance performed the traditional function of insurance (spreading risk among a large pool for infrequent big expenses, rather than paying for readily anticipatable minor expenses, the less craziness with forms and claims there would be.

 

[M Paquette]

I was wondering if Ebenezer was going to show up.

That story always makes me so sad. It's just something about a simple follower of Positive Objectivism being driven to madness by those terrible ghosts. His breakdown and collapse, when he actually helps others and gives away some of his wealth makes me teary-eyed.

 

[kuli48]

Flyfishnevada
I live in rural Iowa, are you upset with farmers and ranchers receiving 100's of thousands of $ every year.

 

[tightasadrum]

Flyfishnevada
I live in rural Iowa, are you upset with farmers and ranchers receiving 100's of thousands of $ every year.

My great uncle farmed in Iowa for over 80 years. He used to marvel at the money the federal government offered him to NOT plant. He preferred to plant, except for normal crop rotation practices where one year was clover or alfalfa. They probably gave him money for doing what he intended to do anyway, I don't know.

 

[ERD50]

Flyfishnevada
I live in rural Iowa, are you upset with farmers and ranchers receiving 100's of thousands of $ every year.

I am not Flyfishnevada, but I am upset with it. But why do you ask? Do two wrongs make a right?

-ERD50

 

[Texas Proud]

Flyfishnevada
I live in rural Iowa, are you upset with farmers and ranchers receiving 100's of thousands of $ every year.

Not fly, but also upset with farmers and ranchers receiving that kind of money year after year...

I think the ethanol subsidy is one of the worst...

 

[HFWR]

Ideologically speaking, I'm okay with helping the "poor", and also think that some "central planning" of a strategic nature seems useful. But practically speaking, we end up with welfare cheats, politically motivated "subsidies", and [-]white collar crooks[/-] connected insiders getting the hubris that is our tax dollars. It's enough to make one a libertopian...

Having said that, most folks on TANF and/or SNAP don't have it so good...

 

[growing_older]

In the absence of a story with more details, I don't think any of us are qualified to make a judgment on this.

There do seem to be plenty of details available. Husband is a successful chiropractor who can afford a million dollar plus waterfront home. Stay at home wife files claim she is not married to him and collects welfare benefits for her and her kids from multiple programs, including housing assistance, disability payments based on low income and food assistance, yet they all live together in the waterfront house. It's the same welfare fraud of supposedly single mothers hiding their relationship and sometimes cohabitation with the father of their children because the rules demand it. Except here the amount of income of the husband is larger than most and they spent over ten years getting benefits from multiple programs so the total take was larger.

You might argue that rules should be changed, but we still shouldn't be rewarding people just because they know which lies to tell.

 

[Bestwifeever]

Thanks for contributing: