disability insurance fraud 60 minutes

What are called "Benefit Authorizers" that work at SSA Woodlawn, do the trust fund adjustments..
RIB ( Retirement Insurance Benefits) might be given to someone whom is on Disability, but are paid out under the spouses (i.e) Retirement benefits.

Their computer is good making the adjustments, but actual case folders have to be manully audited, and adjusted, to make sure the proper amout on a beneficiarys' check is coming form whichever trust fund.

for the life of me I cannot remember dealing with SSI - I only delt with the 2 main trust funds.

Then there is Congressional borrowing - basically IOU's that have drained the actual holdings in the trust funds.

They are insolvent, for all intents, unless Congress borrows (which it will) more money to pay them back.

It should be noted interest on the annual debt is now a whopping $400 BILLION -just to pay the annual interest.
 
I wonder if there could be any reason why they have shot up so much in recent years? And I wonder what would happen if we cut these millions of people off?
 
Darla said:
I wonder if there could be any reason why they have shot up so much in recent years? And I wonder what would happen if we cut these millions of people off?
Click to expand...
I would think it is the factors mentioned by the SSA adm, but also abuse by lawyers, and more claiments looking for free rides.

The process isn't easy, but hire an atty, (advertised all over the place) let them do it on a contingency -and voila' some are going to get thru that shouldn't.

OP shows about 25% (estimated) that should not- but it might be particular to this locale.

They are on the roles - almost impossible to get them off, unless investigated for fraud, the program is huge - what we have to do is more Congressional oversight.

But Congress doesn't want to do any difficult work, just grandstand and shut down the gov't
 
What is the difference between being "legitimately disabled" and unable to work, vs being unable to find work once you have been laid off over the age of 55, and needing to survive until 65, in a culture that largely refuses to hire those 55 and over?
 
Darla said:
What is the difference between being "legitimately disabled" and unable to work, vs being unable to find work once you have been laid off over the age of 55, and needing to survive until 65, in a culture that largely refuses to hire those 55 and over?
Click to expand...
The big difference is that at 55, you still have many years' productivity ahead of you. My wife is one of those who are legitimately disabled and I am deeply offended by the amount of abuse that has been happening.
 
Darla said:
What is the difference between being "legitimately disabled" and unable to work, vs being unable to find work once you have been laid off over the age of 55, and needing to survive until 65, in a culture that largely refuses to hire those 55 and over?
Click to expand...

That's a structural problem that needs to be addressed; as Coburn said in one of the posts "Tom Coburn: Absolutely desperate. I agree. But what you're really describing is our economy and the consequences of it. And we're using a system that wasn't meant for that, because we don't have a system over there to help them. Which means we're not addressing the other concerns in our society. And that's a debate Congress ought to have"

Unfortunately, I don't see him bringing it up to be addressed, I just see him wanting to kick people off the only thing that's keeping them going.

What I've heard is this - not sure if it's true or not - but what they say is that when you're under 50, SocSec brings you back in pretty regularly for checks to see if you're really disabled and they push you to go to work - and they have a lot of programs to help you work even part time and still get some disability. But once you're over 50, they also give up, figuring you can't get a job in your prior field once you're over 50 and so in general, if you're in your 50s and on disability, it's unlikely you'll be booted off.

Now whether that is true or not, I can't say; and whether it is "right" or not I also can't say.
 
"Tom Coburn: Absolutely desperate. I agree. But what you're really describing is our economy and the consequences of it. And we're using a system that wasn't meant for that, because we don't have a system over there to help them. Which means we're not addressing the other concerns in our society. And that's a debate Congress ought to have
Click to expand...
what he is saying is there are rules, that have to be followed to receive disability. It is illegal, and morally wrong to be on disability, if you do not meet the criteria.

The bigger point is that
means we're not addressing the other concerns in our society. And that's a debate Congress ought to have
Click to expand...
Coburn recognizes the need for people "because we don't have a sytem to help them", is that Congress needs to address the situation.

Simply flooding the disability roles is not an answer
 
How is it that so many Americans are evidently desperate for income?



Didn't Obama and the Democrat Party promise jobs and prosperity?
 
Rana said:
Yes, I am positive there are no conservatives who committ fraud, they are perfect.
Click to expand...
What is this; another strawman?? Say it isn't so!!!:rolleyes:

I guess you are okay with Desh spamming the threads withher inane Republicans are cheaters bullshit. Leftists are so dishonest.
 
Where are the jobs the Democrat Party promised?

Why are some Americans so desperate for income they will commit fraud to get disability benefits?
 
annata said:
what he is saying is there are rules, that have to be followed to receive disability. It is illegal, and morally wrong to be on disability, if you do not meet the criteria.

The bigger point is that
Coburn recognizes the need for people "because we don't have a sytem to help them", is that Congress needs to address the situation.

Simply flooding the disability roles is not an answer
Click to expand...

I agree. But I DON'T see Coburn leading a charge for some other system; if I'm wrong, please post the link. So it's disingenuous to say we have to kick everyone off because there is fraud and there should be a different answer -and then not offer the other answer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top