"bb" wrote

You see, she has asthma and can't work. But she can have wild,
passionate sex and get pregnant, then go through childbirth at least
twice.

Are you saying that asthma sufferers should not be allowed to have wild,
passionate sex or become parents? How about cancer patients or blind people or
amputees?

You are indeed one strange man, Brian!

3's, de Hans "I invented Billy Beeper", K0HB

Steve, one of my sons had a bad accident and his leg was broken in two
places. After spending a night in the e-room and a day in the
hospital, he went to work finding a new job. He had been cheffing, but
its hard to chef from a wheelchair, and he had bills to pay. So I kept
bringing him newspapers and he started calling around to jobs that
sounded like "sit-down" jobs. He sold magazines by telephone for a
week, then he got on at a window/siding place. He started making OK
money - more than cheffing paid even though he loved cheffing. He met
another salesman on the job, and they talked a little. The guy lived
for free with his "girlfriend" and her two children in sec 8 housing.
You see, she has asthma and can't work. But she can have wild,
passionate sex and get pregnant, then go through childbirth at least
twice. Not bad for a person who can't work. Well, my son in a
wheelchair and pins in his leg read this guy the riot act. He almost
got fired for being "prejudiced."

I listened to a guy who called in on 700/WLW one night. He was a
workman's comp investigator. Funniest two minute call I've ever heard.
He called in while actually having someone under surveillance, and
said that he wished they were listening to the program so they would
start acting injured again. He'll probably get fired for that, and the
faker will get a lifetime of freebies.

bb

Subject: Problem for boaters and APRS?
From:
Date: 12/27/2004 12:12 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id: . com


K4YZ wrote:
N2EY wrote:

Jim, is there some underlying reason why you feel it necessary to
insult me like this?

I didn't mean to insult you, Steve, I just didn't know what you meant.

How can you not?

This very same topic has been front page stuff in Newsweek, Time, etc, for
years.

Mr 28 and one of the others made their arrivals via EMS. Both of
Mr 28's visits were chauffered per the county. Again paid for by
SSI/Medicare. Mr. 28 is under 40 and "disabled" due an injury that,
oddly, prevents him from "working", but not from riding motorcycles,
drinking, and otherwise dissapating that check in a hurry.

So what you've got are people who manipulate the system and use the ER
for things that should be cared for by a primary care physician - or
just good ol' common sense.

And why should they? They've had "consumer advocate groups" led by the
ACLU, NAACP, etc etc telling them this was their "right" to do for decades now.

How do we fix the problem? Shut down all entitlements because some
people abuse them?

Almost...yes.

The only thing that would clean this up is to do a complete survey of
everyone receiving SSI or Medicaid. Just because you're not able to leap tall
buildings in a single bound doesn't mean you can't work at all.

Think I am exaggerating or making this up?

Not at all!

You are most cordially
invited to join me any weekend that I work and spend the evening.
You've got my e mail address...drop me a line. I'll set it up.

What percentage of ER visits would you estimate are legitimate, and
what percentage are manipulations of the system?

Better than 30% are truly inappropriate uses. More on occassions. This
past weekend we saw an average of 60 persons per day. On both days "cold or
flu symptoms" were the leading chief complaint.

Social Security and it's ancilliary programs such as SSI and AFDC
actually promote single parent households

You mean because the benefits for two single people are greater than
those of a married couple? I agree 100%.

I mean because all you ahve to do is get pregnant without a spouse and
"you're in".

Note that the income taxes a married couple pay when both work are
greater than the sum of the income taxes of two single working people
making the same money and living together.

and perpetuate drug seeking
behaviour.

How?

Because they have "insurance" that allows them to go to almost any ER
unfettered. Federal regulations under HIPPA, The Health Insurance Portability
and Protection Act, enforces astronomical fines for healthcare workers who
cross-communicate information about patients without their consent.

These "patients" know that they can go to the ER, complain of "back pain",
and in all likelyhood will get an Rx for atleast 3 days worth of Lortab just to
get them out of the ER, and it's technically illegal for us to warn other ER's
that Joe Schmo is getting drugs here.

I work in four different ER's within a 65 mile radius, Jim, and I
personally know of at leat 12 people who frequent all four of them for the same
"complaint".

Oh...yes...JCAHO, the Joint Commission for the Accredidation of Healthcare
Organizations, has made it mandatory that we post signs telling people it's
their right to demand pain medicine. There's nothing on those same "notices"
that says the healthcare provider has the right to say "no" after having
examined you and determined that narcotics are not in your best interest.

Lastly, every Medicare/Medicaid participating facility is required by law
to post signs in the ER that tell the world that it is again their "right" to
receive "free medical examinations regardless of your ability to pay". These
facilities have the "right" to demand payment later, of course, but what do
they (the "patients") care? They just toss those deamnds in the trash since
they are not obligated to pay them. Mr 28 has an outstanding debt to my full
time employer of almost $40K just for ER visits alone in the last 3 years.

Since any healthcare facility that accepts
Medicare/Medicaid must also accept their rules, these "patients" are
allowed to continue these abuses almost unabated.

Why "work" when all they have to do is get pregnant, get "the
check" coming, and then their "insurance card" follows...Nice deal.
Or
find an MD who will certify them as "disabled"...There's a whole
Cottage Industry of trial lawyers who jump a the chance to help these
poor souls get thier checks rolling in. The recipients will get
"back
pay" checks going back to the first day they filed an applcation for
"benefits". The backpay can be as much as $12K to $20K once the
lawyers play with it for a while since these negotiations can go on
for
a couple of years. (Which begs to ask how is it they managed to get
along without the monies!)

I agree that they are all abuses of the system. But how do we fix them?
Do we just shut down SS?

Get Social Security back to what it was supposed to be..."Security" for
people in thier latter years against retirement. Not a freeloaders ticket to
the Pot-O-Gold.

By the way, YOU are paying for it.

I've been paying for it longer than you, Steve.

Perhaps.

Furthermore, any healthcare facility that accepts federal
entitlement payees (and 95% of all facilites must, if they want to
"do
business") must also accept federal regulations...Not a bad idea you
say? Federal rules are the reason most hospitals must charge $2.00
for
a Tylenol and $20 for a simple gauze dressing from people with "real"
insurance. Medicare says "we will pay you "this much" and you WILL
accept it, sorry if it's not enough to cover your real expenses...

It's called "cost shifting". The people who pay don't just pay for
themselves, they pay for those who don't pay anything.

Here in metro Philly, it is not too unusual for an addict in labor to
show up at a major hospital. Delivery is complicated by many factors
and baby has multiple problems, all traceable to substance abuse. Mom
and baby get good medical care, probably saving both their lives - at a
cost of a quarter million or so in medical costs alone. Then mom signs
herself out AMA and abandons baby to the care of the state. Often baby
leaves hospital by way of the morgue because the multiple problems are
simply too much and too many.

And in a year or two, if she's still alive, mom is back in the same or
worse condition.

I worked in West Memphis, AR for two years after I left the Gun Club. The
first month I was there one of the local baby factories was having her 3rd
child in the ED. Had a fourth while I was there, and was pregnant with number
five and due just about the time I left. Her primary concern was how long
would it take for the new kid's check to get started.

And we all pay for it.

Now - how do we fix it?

Clean house, Jim. A total top-to-bottom survey of every enrollee. And
legislation that allows us to cap their benefits or entitlement periods. We
have to allow ourselves the freedom to say "NO", and to demand that people
carry their own weight.

So, Jim, please do NOT presume to ask me "where" we are in
reference to the current state of Social Security... I see it every
day. You're welcome to join me for a shift if you're really, REALLY
prepared to leave mad...

You are lumping all entitlement programs together, as if they're all
the same. They're not.

They're not all the same, but they are all being abused.

It's clear that *some* people manipulate and abuse the systems. They
obviously need fixing. But how do we fix them?

One step at a time.

Steve, K4YZ

Subject: Problem for boaters and APRS?
From: "KØHB"
Date: 12/27/2004 7:53 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:


"bb" wrote

You see, she has asthma and can't work. But she can have wild,
passionate sex and get pregnant, then go through childbirth at least
twice.

Are you saying that asthma sufferers should not be allowed to have wild,
passionate sex or become parents? How about cancer patients or blind people
or
amputees?

I am again forced to agree with Brian.

And not just "asthma" patients, but COPD'ers who smell of cigarette smoke,
"back pain" patients who exacerbated their "disabling" back pain while riding
their motorcycle or out drinking all night, or diabetics who present in DKA who
refuse to comply with their MD's plan-of-care.

People who have bonafide needs should get the care they need. Those who
have needs but refuse to do what is necessary to "get fixed" yet demand that
"we" do "something" to get them better need to be given the boot and a referal
to a funeral home director with pre-paid plans.

Steve, K4YZ

bb" wrote

You see, she has asthma and can't work. But she can have wild,
passionate sex and get pregnant, then go through childbirth at least
twice.

I asked Brian N0IMD

Are you saying that asthma sufferers should not be allowed to have wild,
passionate sex or become parents?

Steve K4YZ chimed in with:


I am again forced to agree with Brian.


OK, folks, there you have it. Brian indicates that asthma sufferers who have
"wild, passionate sex" should not be eligible for SS benefits, and health-care
professional Steve agrees with him.

It must be true if these experts say it is.

Damn, I sure hope I never contract asthma, or I'll not be eligible for "wild,
passionate sex" when I grow old.

I wonder who checks on stuff like this? Is there a USSCC (U. S. Sex Cop Corps)
which conducts random screening of all asthma patients? Maybe the ARRL Official
Observers can get a homeland security grant for training in proper
observation/identification of those who are too "wild" or "passionate". This
could boost ARRL membership dramatically, because you must be an ARRL member to
be an Official Observer.

Can grandfathers/mothers be grandfathered/mothered in under the regulations?
Should there be bold caution labels affixed to all inhalers warning that "ONLY
TAME AND PLATONIC SEX IS ALLOWED WHILE USING THIS PRODUCT"?

So many questions!

3's, de Hans ("I invented Billy Beeper"), K0HB

I'm saying that asthma sufferers can have any kind of sex they want,
but don't tell me that there aren't capable of leading productive,
-working- lives.

You're on your own with the cancer patients, blind people, and amputees
as they were not in my post.

2.5, de bb "I kidnapped Billy Beeper"

Subject: Problem for asthma patients
From: "KØHB"
Date: 12/28/2004 11:05 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

bb" wrote

You see, she has asthma and can't work. But she can have wild,
passionate sex and get pregnant, then go through childbirth at least
twice.

I asked Brian N0IMD

Are you saying that asthma sufferers should not be allowed to have wild,
passionate sex or become parents?

Steve K4YZ chimed in with:


I am again forced to agree with Brian.


OK, folks, there you have it. Brian indicates that asthma sufferers who have

"wild, passionate sex" should not be eligible for SS benefits, and
health-care
professional Steve agrees with him.

Of course that wasn't the context in which the comments were made, but
hey, it's Hans we're talking about, and any chance Hans gets to make himself
out to be better than anyone else is to be expected.

You're still an idiot, Hans. Accept it...Embrace it...

Steve, K4YZ

Hans, go ahead and contract any medical condition that you desire; your
"wild passionate sex" days are long gone.

Steve Robeson K4YZ wrote:
Subject: Problem for boaters and APRS?
From:
Date: 12/27/2004 12:12 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id: . com

K4YZ wrote:
N2EY wrote:

Jim, is there some underlying reason why you feel it necessary to
insult me like this?

I didn't mean to insult you, Steve, I just didn't know what you
meant.

How can you not?

I just didn't understand your statement. Nothing more or less. That's
all, now it's clearer.

This very same topic has been front page stuff in Newsweek, Time,
etc, for
years.

I don't read those mags. Philly Inquirer makes them look like tabloids.


Mr 28 and one of the others made their arrivals via EMS. Both of
Mr 28's visits were chauffered per the county. Again paid for by
SSI/Medicare. Mr. 28 is under 40 and "disabled" due an injury
that,
oddly, prevents him from "working", but not from riding
motorcycles,
drinking, and otherwise dissapating that check in a hurry.

So what you've got are people who manipulate the system and use the
ER
for things that should be cared for by a primary care physician - or
just good ol' common sense.

And why should they? They've had "consumer advocate groups" led
by the
ACLU, NAACP, etc etc telling them this was their "right" to do for
decades now.

How do we fix the problem? Shut down all entitlements because some
people abuse them?

Almost...yes.

The only thing that would clean this up is to do a complete
survey of
everyone receiving SSI or Medicaid.

That's not a shutdown at all, just a review. Sounds like a good idea to
me.

Just because you're not able to leap tall
buildings in a single bound doesn't mean you can't work at all.

I agree 100%.

Think I am exaggerating or making this up?

Not at all!

What percentage of ER visits would you estimate are legitimate, and
what percentage are manipulations of the system?

Better than 30% are truly inappropriate uses. More on
occassions. This
past weekend we saw an average of 60 persons per day. On both days
"cold or
flu symptoms" were the leading chief complaint.

Social Security and it's ancilliary programs such as SSI and AFDC
actually promote single parent households

You mean because the benefits for two single people are greater than
those of a married couple? I agree 100%.

I mean because all you ahve to do is get pregnant without a spouse
and
"you're in".

IOW, a "marriage penalty". Exists in the income tax system, too.

Note that the income taxes a married couple pay when both work are
greater than the sum of the income taxes of two single working
people
making the same money and living together.

Which was partly fixed by Carter and then unfixed by Ronald "family
values" Reagan.

and perpetuate drug seeking
behaviour.

How?

Because they have "insurance" that allows them to go to almost
any ER
unfettered. Federal regulations under HIPPA, The Health Insurance
Portability
and Protection Act, enforces astronomical fines for healthcare
workers who
cross-communicate information about patients without their consent.

Now that's just plain wrong, because medical personnel need as much
pertinent data as possible, for purely medical reasons.

These "patients" know that they can go to the ER, complain of
"back pain",
and in all likelyhood will get an Rx for atleast 3 days worth of
Lortab just to
get them out of the ER, and it's technically illegal for us to warn
other ER's
that Joe Schmo is getting drugs here.

Is that one way Rush Limbaugh got his Oxycontin?

I work in four different ER's within a 65 mile radius, Jim, and
I
personally know of at leat 12 people who frequent all four of them
for the same
"complaint".

How is Doc B supposed to avoid prescribing a med that is incompatible
with meds prescribed by Doc A if Joe S. won't release medical info?

Whenever I go to the doc, there's always a form allowing release of
medical info to other healthcare personnel and institutions "just in
case". I always agree and sign it, on the theory they should have the
info and I have nothing to hide.

Oh...yes...JCAHO, the Joint Commission for the Accredidation of
Healthcare
Organizations, has made it mandatory that we post signs telling
people it's
their right to demand pain medicine. There's nothing on those same
"notices"
that says the healthcare provider has the right to say "no" after
having
examined you and determined that narcotics are not in your best
interest.

That's messed up, too. I guess nobody could say "no" to Rush, either...

Lastly, every Medicare/Medicaid participating facility is
required by law
to post signs in the ER that tell the world that it is again their
"right" to
receive "free medical examinations regardless of your ability to
pay".

Examinations, or complete care?

These
facilities have the "right" to demand payment later, of course, but
what do
they (the "patients") care? They just toss those deamnds in the
trash since
they are not obligated to pay them. Mr 28 has an outstanding debt to
my full
time employer of almost $40K just for ER visits alone in the last 3
years.

Because the ER can't toss anybody out.

Since any healthcare facility that accepts
Medicare/Medicaid must also accept their rules, these "patients"
are
allowed to continue these abuses almost unabated.

Why "work" when all they have to do is get pregnant, get "the
check" coming, and then their "insurance card" follows...Nice
deal.
Or
find an MD who will certify them as "disabled"...There's a whole
Cottage Industry of trial lawyers who jump a the chance to help
these
poor souls get thier checks rolling in. The recipients will get
"back
pay" checks going back to the first day they filed an applcation
for
"benefits". The backpay can be as much as $12K to $20K once the
lawyers play with it for a while since these negotiations can go
on
for
a couple of years. (Which begs to ask how is it they managed to
get
along without the monies!)

I agree that they are all abuses of the system. But how do we fix
them?
Do we just shut down SS?

Get Social Security back to what it was supposed to
be..."Security" for
people in thier latter years against retirement. Not a freeloaders
ticket to
the Pot-O-Gold.

What about people who really are disabled?

By the way, YOU are paying for it.

I've been paying for it longer than you, Steve.

Perhaps.

Furthermore, any healthcare facility that accepts federal
entitlement payees (and 95% of all facilites must, if they want to
"do
business") must also accept federal regulations...Not a bad idea
you
say? Federal rules are the reason most hospitals must charge
$2.00
for
a Tylenol and $20 for a simple gauze dressing from people with
"real"
insurance. Medicare says "we will pay you "this much" and you
WILL
accept it, sorry if it's not enough to cover your real expenses...

It's called "cost shifting". The people who pay don't just pay for
themselves, they pay for those who don't pay anything.

Here in metro Philly, it is not too unusual for an addict in labor
to
show up at a major hospital. Delivery is complicated by many
factors
and baby has multiple problems, all traceable to substance abuse.
Mom
and baby get good medical care, probably saving both their lives -
at a
cost of a quarter million or so in medical costs alone. Then mom
signs
herself out AMA and abandons baby to the care of the state. Often
baby
leaves hospital by way of the morgue because the multiple problems
are
simply too much and too many.

And in a year or two, if she's still alive, mom is back in the same
or
worse condition.

I worked in West Memphis, AR for two years after I left the Gun
Club. The
first month I was there one of the local baby factories was having
her 3rd
child in the ED. Had a fourth while I was there, and was pregnant
with number
five and due just about the time I left. Her primary concern was how
long
would it take for the new kid's check to get started.

And we all pay for it.

Now - how do we fix it?

Clean house, Jim. A total top-to-bottom survey of every
enrollee. And
legislation that allows us to cap their benefits or entitlement
periods. We
have to allow ourselves the freedom to say "NO", and to demand that
people
carry their own weight.

That's a start. But who gets to make the critical judgements, as in
Person A is really disabled but Person B isn't?

How do you *make* people "carry their own weight"?

So, Jim, please do NOT presume to ask me "where" we are in
reference to the current state of Social Security... I see it
every
day. You're welcome to join me for a shift if you're really,
REALLY
prepared to leave mad...

You are lumping all entitlement programs together, as if they're all
the same. They're not.

They're not all the same, but they are all being abused.

It's clear that *some* people manipulate and abuse the systems. They
obviously need fixing. But how do we fix them?

One step at a time.

I agree 100% with your first step.

--

Here's one way abuse in a related area was stopped big-time:

The local transit agency *used to be* a target for injury claims. A bus
with capacity of 65 people would get in a midday minor accident, and
they'd get 90 injury claims from alleged riders. Etc.

Couple years ago they got tough in various ways. One was the
installation of cameras in various vehicles that would show who was
onboard. Of course not all the cameras were real - but who would take a
chance?

They also sent out plainclothes investigators to follow people with
hard-to-disprove injuries like "back pain". Then they'd go after fakers
for fraud, like the guy with back pain who couldn't work at all but
could singlehandedly unload his new bigscreen TV from the car and carry
it up a flight of steps into his house - while wearing the soft collar.
Both collar and TV paid for by guess who.

Most of all, they made a point of publicizing their efforts and
successes. Not only did folks lose their payments - some were sued
successfully for fraud. OTOH, their efforts have actually helped people
with real injuries file successful claims.

And the claims have dropped substantially.

Of course the initial efforts cost serious $$ and were not 100%
successful. But the long-term results were impressive. And it did not
take changes in the laws.
Maybe something like that is step two.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Subject: Problem for boaters and APRS?
From:
Date: 12/28/2004 1:59 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id: .com


Steve Robeson K4YZ wrote:
Subject: Problem for boaters and APRS?
From:
Date: 12/27/2004 12:12 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id: . com

K4YZ wrote:
N2EY wrote:

The only thing that would clean this up is to do a complete
survey of
everyone receiving SSI or Medicaid.

That's not a shutdown at all, just a review. Sounds like a good idea to
me.

I don't believe I ever said "shut them down"...I beleive my words were to
the effect of getting

Note that the income taxes a married couple pay when both work are
greater than the sum of the income taxes of two single working
people
making the same money and living together.

Which was partly fixed by Carter and then unfixed by Ronald "family
values" Reagan.

Yeah...fixed by Mr. 15% Inflation Carter. Uh huh...I remember. He enacted
a 17.5% one time parity raise for the Armed Forces, then taxed the bee-jeebers
out of us.

and perpetuate drug seeking
behaviour.

How?

Because they have "insurance" that allows them to go to almost
any ER
unfettered. Federal regulations under HIPPA, The Health Insurance
Portability
and Protection Act, enforces astronomical fines for healthcare
workers who
cross-communicate information about patients without their consent.

Now that's just plain wrong, because medical personnel need as much
pertinent data as possible, for purely medical reasons.

Well...This was how Mrs Clinton was going to "fix" healthcare. It was the
one and only bit of legislation to get through

These "patients" know that they can go to the ER, complain of
"back pain",
and in all likelyhood will get an Rx for atleast 3 days worth of
Lortab just to
get them out of the ER, and it's technically illegal for us to warn
other ER's
that Joe Schmo is getting drugs here.

Is that one way Rush Limbaugh got his Oxycontin?

I work in four different ER's within a 65 mile radius, Jim, and
I
personally know of at leat 12 people who frequent all four of them
for the same
"complaint".

How is Doc B supposed to avoid prescribing a med that is incompatible
with meds prescribed by Doc A if Joe S. won't release medical info?

Exactly. Again, it's part of the tail that the healthcare hound dog get's
to chase. And MANY of the "maladies" that patients suffer is due to seeing
"Doc A" about one problem and "Doc B" for another.

Whenever I go to the doc, there's always a form allowing release of
medical info to other healthcare personnel and institutions "just in
case". I always agree and sign it, on the theory they should have the
info and I have nothing to hide.

That's because you're smarter than the average bear, BooBoo, and probably
have "real insurance" that requires your PMD to manage your care.

I spent this afternoon at a surgeon's office and will have to go to sugery
soon...but all the Doc's know who is doing what.

Oh...yes...JCAHO, the Joint Commission for the Accredidation of
Healthcare
Organizations, has made it mandatory that we post signs telling
people it's
their right to demand pain medicine. There's nothing on those same
"notices"
that says the healthcare provider has the right to say "no" after
having
examined you and determined that narcotics are not in your best
interest.

That's messed up, too. I guess nobody could say "no" to Rush, either...

Basically.

Lastly, every Medicare/Medicaid participating facility is
required by law
to post signs in the ER that tell the world that it is again their
"right" to
receive "free medical examinations regardless of your ability to
pay".

Examinations, or complete care?

It becomes complete care. Under Medicare/caid laws, the facility must
"address" the problem, which means do it for free or else. It just becomes
cheaper to write the person a script and sent them on their way.

Of course it's usually narcotics...You can always tell the real
abusers...They eat the narcs like M&M's, then wind up stopping the intestinal
tract. Then they develop a bowel obstrcution for which they ahve to go to
surgery. And of course surgery means more meds...See where this goes...???

These
facilities have the "right" to demand payment later, of course, but
what do
they (the "patients") care? They just toss those deamnds in the
trash since
they are not obligated to pay them. Mr 28 has an outstanding debt to
my full
time employer of almost $40K just for ER visits alone in the last 3
years.

Because the ER can't toss anybody out.

One facility I worked at performed "Triage" for a while...Local MD's would
allocate "X" number of appointments in the day for ER referals. We actually
did "just" what the Medicare rules required, examined the patients, then gave
them an appointment referal to participating MD's.

Inappropriate ER usage dropped by 53% and collections improved by a
quantum leap because we weren't wasting time on what were charity cases. No
one didn't get to see a doctor, either, since the local docs would work out
payments for the truly indigent.

Then the ACLU got involved. We were "inconvieniencing" the patients.

Get Social Security back to what it was supposed to
be..."Security" for
people in thier latter years against retirement. Not a freeloaders
ticket to
the Pot-O-Gold.

What about people who really are disabled?

What about them?

Have I said "No Social Security for ANYone", Jim?

Clean house, Jim. A total top-to-bottom survey of every
enrollee. And
legislation that allows us to cap their benefits or entitlement
periods. We
have to allow ourselves the freedom to say "NO", and to demand that
people
carry their own weight.

That's a start. But who gets to make the critical judgements, as in
Person A is really disabled but Person B isn't?

Medical Review Boards. Make these people show up at a prescribed time
with copies of their records in hand.

How do you *make* people "carry their own weight"?

That's what has to be worked out. Me? You get "x" weeks of benefits as
"benefit of the doubt", after that, you have to prove you need long term
care...and that long term care is more than one MD's opinion. Also, your
disability is "scored". Below a certain level, you go to work or you go
without. Your choice.

So, Jim, please do NOT presume to ask me "where" we are in
reference to the current state of Social Security... I see it
every
day. You're welcome to join me for a shift if you're really,
REALLY
prepared to leave mad...

You are lumping all entitlement programs together, as if they're all
the same. They're not.

They're not all the same, but they are all being abused.

It's clear that *some* people manipulate and abuse the systems. They
obviously need fixing. But how do we fix them?

One step at a time.

I agree 100% with your first step.

--

Here's one way abuse in a related area was stopped big-time:

The local transit agency *used to be* a target for injury claims. A bus
with capacity of 65 people would get in a midday minor accident, and
they'd get 90 injury claims from alleged riders. Etc.

Couple years ago they got tough in various ways. One was the
installation of cameras in various vehicles that would show who was
onboard. Of course not all the cameras were real - but who would take a
chance?

They also sent out plainclothes investigators to follow people with
hard-to-disprove injuries like "back pain". Then they'd go after fakers
for fraud, like the guy with back pain who couldn't work at all but
could singlehandedly unload his new bigscreen TV from the car and carry
it up a flight of steps into his house - while wearing the soft collar.
Both collar and TV paid for by guess who.

Most of all, they made a point of publicizing their efforts and
successes. Not only did folks lose their payments - some were sued
successfully for fraud. OTOH, their efforts have actually helped people
with real injuries file successful claims.

And the claims have dropped substantially.

Of course the initial efforts cost serious $$ and were not 100%
successful. But the long-term results were impressive. And it did not
take changes in the laws.
Maybe something like that is step two.

Step three might be "bounties" for persons accused of and subsequently
found guilty of fraud.

Personally, I am all for "all of the above". I would add a whole section
of the Sunday paper with a full color mug shots of those convicted of bilking
assistance programs because that's stealing from you and I. Peer pressure and
a bit of humiliation go a long way towards modifying undesired behaviour.

73

Steve, K4YZ