Welfare Recipient Lives In Million Dollar Home

[ballen0351]

But how did we get from 'rich people' getting benefits to Micky D's coffee incident?

Cant be rich if they are on welfare right? Thats the point of Welfare :rules:

 

[MJS]

Actually, I'm just in favor of accuracy and a bit of perspective. We get fed the 'outrage of the day' and we get outraged, just like the tools we are (and I'm not immune to it either). We ignore the bigger picture and the bigger problem.

Ok, I'm all ears. In your opinion, what is the bigger picture/problem?

There is a limit on welfare. Most states have lifetime caps. I'm not sure why people keep insisting that there are no caps; there are.

Hmm...what is the cap then? Is there a web site to show this? I'm simply asking, because it seems they were on welfare for a long time.

Loophole is just another word. It means someone followed the letter of the law but in a way that the lawmakers had not imagined or envisioned. It is neither immoral nor illegal to exploit the law; if there was a 'loophole' that allowed people with red cars to avoid traffic tickets, that would be the only color car sold.

Then fix the hole. I mean, if its causing a problem, fix it, if its not, then don't worry about it...its that simple.

Second, you're conflating all the stories about 'Welfare moms' to focus your anger on this story. I don't know what kind of car these people drive, or how they dress their kids. Do you?

Simply an example Bill, and you know it. My anger is directed towards the people who screw the system. Once again, if someone is legit, fine.

Most social welfare that I'm aware of makes the recipient spend all their disposable income and liquidate all assets before they can receive aid. Only a few are strictly income-based. In any case, if this family did wrong, then I agree that they should be arrested, tried, and punished. If not, then I'd be interested to know how they legally were able to take exotic vacations while receiving public assistance. But in the absence of criminal charges, I have to assume (for now) that they did it legally and it's not really my business. Is there something wrong with a system that allows this? I don't know. I really don't think it's an epidemic problem, though.

Well Bill, you and I are in agreement on this.

Why does it make any difference what the net value is of the home they are RENTING? If the rent is in line with what's allowed, and they gave the information correctly, I fail to see the point; unless you wish to argue that certain people (the unemployed or poor) should not live in certain neighborhoods...

Then I'd have to ask....why was this news worthy? I'd probably have to chalk it up to stereotyping Bill. But I'll give you that one.....no, it shouldn't matter.

But if they are really in need, you seem to think they should ACT like they're really in need. Wear rags, live in a ghetto, drive a ratty car, beg on streetcorners. If they manage to get a rich guy with an empty house he can't sell to rent them an empty mansion for cheap, well, that just doesn't look right. FORCE them to move into the crappy part of town, for the sake of appearances, not to mention that rich people really don't care for the poor living amongst them.

I'm not seeing the issue here, except we have someone getting public assistance (apparently legally, at least from what we know so far) who has the uppityness to not act poor and downtrodden and needy at us. I'm not sure if that shows us something bad about them...or us.

And you got that out of me saying if they're in need, help them out, but if they're they are defrauding the system, then its wrong. Umm...ok. My point Bill, was simply, and again, I'll defer to an earlier comment of why this is news worthy, is because you normally don't see things like this, so yes, I can see how some red flags, suspicion, etc, would be raised.

 

[MJS]

I want to make it clear that I don't know anything about this case, but based only on what's in this thread, even if the person owned the home, they may still be totally within the rules. It's pretty common in welfare situations for a person's home to be excluded as a resource. Whether it's a mansion or a shack, the laws are written so that a person won't be forced to sell their home by the government. If you think about it, this is a pretty reasonable rule. It frees up the state or federal case workers from getting into the highly volatile and labor intensive real estate appraisal business, and overall, it saves the tax payers a boat load of money. Other common exclusions include things like one vehicle, burial plots, and furniture.

This just isn't, IMO, that big a deal. Now, if she's got liquid assets she's been hiding, or has been actively defrauding the program, I am all for throwing the book at her. But in this case, if it's just her house, it's very likely that she gave the address and the case workers appropriately and correctly excluded the value of the home according to their rules.

This isn't a loophole as much as it's an administrative expedience grounded in what would be common sense in 99.9% of the cases. In most cases, this rule makes sense and it would be a huge waste of tax payer money to pay government workers to appraise every piece of property.

Points taken Steve. Like I said, apparently I'm not the only one who thinks this is a bit odd, yet some are trying to make this about me, and some vendetta that I have, then in fact, its not about me, its about the article. I'm simply voicing my opinion.

 

[Steve]

I agreed with the rest of your post. Eveyone KNOWS coffee is hot and you shouldnt put it between your legs. If you dont KNOW coffee is hot you will when you touch the cup because the cup will also be hot. That should tell your brain not to try and hold the cup with your legs as you try to add sugar and cream because it might burn you.

I disagree with this. I worked in restaurants for years as a kid (including McDonalds), and I've had hot coffee literally poured on my hand on accident. It hurt, but I wasn't seriously injured at all. While there's an expectation that coffee be hot, I wouldn't by any stretch imagine 3rd degree burns. I would also not have thought about the way that the sweat pants made it worse. Kind of like how steam burns you twice, the sweat pants actually acted like sponges and kept the hot coffee against the skin while also preventing it from cooling off.

Point is, sure, we all know academically that coffee is hot, but there's hot and then there's "nuclear face-of-the-sun hot."

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Ok, I'm all ears. In your opinion, what is the bigger picture/problem?

Systemic fraud of social assistance programs, including Welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security Disability Income, and Workman's Compensation by doctors, health care providers, insurers, agents, and other groups that organized and with intent go after the money in a systematic way. Individuals who take it upon themselves to rip off the system are a fraction of a percent of the overall fraud incurred.

Hmm...what is the cap then? Is there a web site to show this? I'm simply asking, because it seems they were on welfare for a long time.

I posted it in this thread. It differs by state, since Welfare is state-run. But here:

http://www.dshs.wa.gov/manuals/eaz/sections/TANFtime-A.shtml

In Washington state, it's five years and out.

Then fix the hole. I mean, if its causing a problem, fix it, if its not, then don't worry about it...its that simple.

I agree. The problem is that not everyone agrees on what a 'loophole' is. That's the part that's not simple. I don't like homeowners getting a tax break on the interest they pay. It's a loophole.

Simply an example Bill, and you know it. My anger is directed towards the people who screw the system. Once again, if someone is legit, fine.

I don't like people who screw the system either.

Well Bill, you and I are in agreement on this.

Then I'd have to ask....why was this news worthy? I'd probably have to chalk it up to stereotyping Bill. But I'll give you that one.....no, it shouldn't matter.

And you got that out of me saying if they're in need, help them out, but if they're they are defrauding the system, then its wrong. Umm...ok. My point Bill, was simply, and again, I'll defer to an earlier comment of why this is news worthy, is because you normally don't see things like this, so yes, I can see how some red flags, suspicion, etc, would be raised.

I think a lot of things are 'news worthy' because they are controversial; just like this. One group grits their teeth and starts ranting about Welfare Queens again, and another group points out that the article itself only reports smoke, no fire. And we're off to the races and the media has done their job - gotten eyeballs on page or sold papers or whatever. Why is it news? Well, not because it's something we all agree is true. Since when has the media only reported true things as a public service? They're in business to make a profit.

Now, here's the fun part....it is beginning to evolve that there is more to the story, and this couple might indeed be spending some time in the crossbar hotel...

http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-n...f/2011/12/welfare_fraud_agents_raid_12_m.html

Prosecutors allege that Shimonova purported that she lived alone with her two children and that her household assets were less than $5,000 to gain Section 8 housing assistance. Silverstein, a Seattle chiropractor, received the monthly benefits of $1,272 as her "landlord," prosecutors allege.

There's more to the story, and it certainly does appear that they are simply fraudsters who deserve to have the book thrown at them. But the original story didn't say that, didn't even allude to it. It merely pointed out that they "lived in a multi-million dollar home" while "getting benefits." That in and of itself is a non-starter for me. Now that we see there's some fire behind the smoke, then yes, throw the book at them.

 

[Steve]

Points taken Steve. Like I said, apparently I'm not the only one who thinks this is a bit odd, yet some are trying to make this about me, and some vendetta that I have, then in fact, its not about me, its about the article. I'm simply voicing my opinion.

Certainly not where I'm coming from. Really, the point I was making is simply that there IS a rationale for many rules. It's easy to see something outrageous and draw conclusions, but even in cases like this imagine how it would look if the Government forced a woman to sell her home in order to live on welfare.

MJS, I want to thank you for bringing this topic up. It brings to light a couple of things I think are very interesting. First, it brings up the idea of return on investment and the cost of tightening the safety net. If it's too tight, fraud and abuse are drastically reduced and payment accuracy goes up, but it costs money. Someone needs to review the cases, and those someones are either private companies outsourced by government or they are government employees. Either way, they don't work for free. Too loose, and we pay too much to people who don't qualify, fraud goes up and payment accuracy goes down meaning people are often either over or underpaid.

Second, it brings up the idea of exceptions. While some will certainly argue that no exceptions should be made, these are also often the same people that would argue that welfare is itself wrong and shouldn't exist. Most people will agree that it's reasonable to allow a family to keep their home and car. Just as most will agree that, while it's understandable to require someone to liquidate their assets including jewelry, it's okay to except their wedding and engagement rings. That sort of thing makes sense. These exceptions are in the law often because the return on investment isn't there or the government would look draconian.

 

[Steve]

Systemic fraud of social assistance programs, including Welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security Disability Income, and Workman's Compensation by doctors, health care providers, insurers, agents, and other groups that organized and with intent go after the money in a systematic way. Individuals who take it upon themselves to rip off the system are a fraction of a percent of the overall fraud incurred.



I posted it in this thread. It differs by state, since Welfare is state-run. But here:

http://www.dshs.wa.gov/manuals/eaz/sections/TANFtime-A.shtml

In Washington state, it's five years and out.

TANF/AFDC are the same thing and are time limited since about 97. I don't know what this woman was receiving, but it could very well be something other than TANF. General Assistance (or GAU) is NOT time limited. http://www.dshs.wa.gov/onlinecso/gau.shtml It also isn't very much money.

One thing to be aware of, though, is that for people in the welfare system, no one program is keeping them afloat. Often, eligibility for one opens up other programs, which in combination provide enough of a safety net to keep people off the street. GAU along with Section 8 housing, Medicaid AND food stamps. While the article mentions cash, the emphasis is on assistance with rent, which is likely in the form of vouchers through Section 8 or HUD.

 

[MJS]

Systemic fraud of social assistance programs, including Welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security Disability Income, and Workman's Compensation by doctors, health care providers, insurers, agents, and other groups that organized and with intent go after the money in a systematic way. Individuals who take it upon themselves to rip off the system are a fraction of a percent of the overall fraud incurred.

So...start with the top, ie: the heads of these depts., the workers, etc, and work down to the bottom, ie: the people who get the benefits. Sure, makes sense.

I posted it in this thread. It differs by state, since Welfare is state-run. But here:

http://www.dshs.wa.gov/manuals/eaz/sections/TANFtime-A.shtml

In Washington state, it's five years and out.

So, this brings up the question of why these people were receiving benefits for 10yrs.

I agree. The problem is that not everyone agrees on what a 'loophole' is. That's the part that's not simple. I don't like homeowners getting a tax break on the interest they pay. It's a loophole.



I don't like people who screw the system either.

If/when these things were ever to be fixed, I'm sure we'd see (at least I'd like to hope) alot less of the fraudulent stuff that goes on.

I think a lot of things are 'news worthy' because they are controversial; just like this. One group grits their teeth and starts ranting about Welfare Queens again, and another group points out that the article itself only reports smoke, no fire. And we're off to the races and the media has done their job - gotten eyeballs on page or sold papers or whatever. Why is it news? Well, not because it's something we all agree is true. Since when has the media only reported true things as a public service? They're in business to make a profit.

Now, here's the fun part....it is beginning to evolve that there is more to the story, and this couple might indeed be spending some time in the crossbar hotel...

http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-n...f/2011/12/welfare_fraud_agents_raid_12_m.html



There's more to the story, and it certainly does appear that they are simply fraudsters who deserve to have the book thrown at them. But the original story didn't say that, didn't even allude to it. It merely pointed out that they "lived in a multi-million dollar home" while "getting benefits." That in and of itself is a non-starter for me. Now that we see there's some fire behind the smoke, then yes, throw the book at them.

LOL, well, it looks like the paper did its job. I'm glad theres more to this story and hopefully the next article we read will be that the Feds arrested them.

 

[MJS]

Well, I typed up a nice reply to this the other day, and lost the whole damn thing. So, lets start again...lol.

Certainly not where I'm coming from. Really, the point I was making is simply that there IS a rationale for many rules. It's easy to see something outrageous and draw conclusions, but even in cases like this imagine how it would look if the Government forced a woman to sell her home in order to live on welfare.

Good points. And perhaps I was drawing some conclusions, making some judgements, based on my dislike for certain things in the system, but, other links have proven things were not on the up and up.

MJS, I want to thank you for bringing this topic up. It brings to light a couple of things I think are very interesting. First, it brings up the idea of return on investment and the cost of tightening the safety net. If it's too tight, fraud and abuse are drastically reduced and payment accuracy goes up, but it costs money. Someone needs to review the cases, and those someones are either private companies outsourced by government or they are government employees. Either way, they don't work for free. Too loose, and we pay too much to people who don't qualify, fraud goes up and payment accuracy goes down meaning people are often either over or underpaid.

My pleasure. I don't normally frequent the study, posting wise, but I thought this topic was worthy of discussion. What I find interesting, is how certain things can get so lost in the shuffle. The past few days, in the paper, 15 state employees, have been investigated for fraudulent acceptance of vouchers for food, when we had a tropical storm and pre-Halloween snow/ice storm. BTW, these folks reportedly were making 6 figures. I know it seems like an impossible task to monitor this stuff, but obviously the system is broke and needs to be fixed, monitored, etc.

Second, it brings up the idea of exceptions. While some will certainly argue that no exceptions should be made, these are also often the same people that would argue that welfare is itself wrong and shouldn't exist. Most people will agree that it's reasonable to allow a family to keep their home and car. Just as most will agree that, while it's understandable to require someone to liquidate their assets including jewelry, it's okay to except their wedding and engagement rings. That sort of thing makes sense. These exceptions are in the law often because the return on investment isn't there or the government would look draconian.

Sure, as I said, exceptions can be made.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

My concern is still the same, and it has nothing to do with the O/P; it has to do with the nature of public outrage. People like to be outraged, and they like simple answers to complex problems. Welfare a problem? Well, it's this family's fault! How many times in the years to come, will this example of abuse be used to paint all Welfare recipients? Not by MJS, but by an outraged and frankly somewhat stupid public who can't or won't look at anything deeper than "Welfare family living in mansion. Well, there's your problem, right there. End of discussion."

It's the same freaking thing as the McDonalds coffee thing. Now and forevermore, anyone who is for tort reform is going to trot that out, and suddenly it's the Poster Child for ALL liability lawsuits. Yes, everyone is an idiot and when they hurt themselves it's their own fault, never the manufacturer, and evil juries award billions of dollars and it's destroying us and we have to put a stop to it and oh **** oh dear.

It's bullcrap.

Simple answers to complex problems satisfy small minds.

But they don't fix problems.

What probably annoys me more than the incidents themselves is that it puts me in a position where I believe I am inhabiting the true conservative point-of-view, which is cut the waste, eliminate the fraud, but don't let yourself be distracted by the shiny thing du jour. But my fellow conservatives, it seems, are all too ready to pounce on the latest outrage and ignore the systemic problems that are the bigger issue. Why, why, why, are they so short-sighted, so deliberately obtuse? Bill Buckley would see through this crap in an instant, as would Barry Goldwater. Follow the money - the REAL money. The systemic abuse, the huge frauds, the nearly-organized crime cartels that the insurance companies, processing centers, and bureaucrats at every level of the social services payment system have become. We lose billions per year through fraud and abuse at a very high level; it puts the occasional Welfare Queen to shame. Yes, we must investigate and prosecute those who abuse the system even at the point of delivery, but they should be our main focus. Get your head in the game, people!

Welfare Queens exist, and there are enough of them to continue to drive the stereotype, which is unfortunate. That's a good reason to keep making sure that only those qualified to receive benefits get them and to prosecute those who cheat or game the system. But they are a drop in the bucket compared to the overall fraud in the system. To focus public attention on the kids in the $200 sneakers and their moms is a mistake.

 

[MJS]

Sounds like we're at an interesting cross road. Bill says that the problem starts at the top. Steve says that it takes time and money to sift thru all the cases. So, this tells me, and maybe I'm wrong, but its just the way I'm reading it, is that if the people at the top were doing their job, they'd make sure there was enough money and resources for the lower level people, to sift thru all these cases, and make sure no fraudulent stuff happens. But if the guy at the top is corrupt, thats not really going to help matters. So, who watches the top guys if thats where the problem starts?

 

[WC_lun]

It is easy to focus attention on the "welfare queens." They represent the idea we have come to accept as the quintesential crook. Poor, lazy, and looking for a score instead of a job. Those people are certainly out there, but fraud in welfare occurs on a much bigger scale by hospitals, health care workers, medical providers, etc. Those are harder to quantify and don't fit our perceptions of a crook. "Look at the welfare queens, welfare is a waste and evil!" Not so easy to do when it is your doctor who is guilty.

In my opinion, there ought to be more investigation into the fraud. I also believe restitution and real jail time ought to be handed down for those found to be guilty of fraud. I think it also ought to be paid for by those found guilty...or at least partially paid for. They steal a million dollars, then they pay $1.1 million, with the extra 100 grand going back into the system to catch other fraudsters.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Medicare/Medicaid:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_fraud

Welfare:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_fraud

The main problem with determining the extent of Welfare fraud versus other types of social services fraud in the US is that it is state-administered. Each state is left to their own devices to detect and eliminate fraud. Most of their efforts consist of identifying the 'bad apples' at the end of the chain, not looking at systemic abuse like this:

http://espn.go.com/college-football...-bulldogs-football-players-tied-welfare-fraud

 

[Steve]

Sounds like we're at an interesting cross road. Bill says that the problem starts at the top. Steve says that it takes time and money to sift thru all the cases. So, this tells me, and maybe I'm wrong, but its just the way I'm reading it, is that if the people at the top were doing their job, they'd make sure there was enough money and resources for the lower level people, to sift thru all these cases, and make sure no fraudulent stuff happens. But if the guy at the top is corrupt, thats not really going to help matters. So, who watches the top guys if thats where the problem starts?

No. The simple issue is funding, taxation and perceived value of a program. I'll generalize a bit for simplicity, but State welfare agencies have X dollars to administer a program. That equates directly to full time and part time employees. They get paid fixed amounts of money, within a band, so from a budget standpoint, it's easy to equate X dollars to Y number of employees. Among the tasks that these employees will accomplish are taking new applications, "emergency" or high priority applications (often homeless children are a priority as are terminally ill applicants, for example), health and safety reviews, referral services and finally, reviews for fraud and payment accuracy. Now, even in the best of times, decisions are being made about which workloads have a priority. If push comes to shove, are reviews deferred in order to process new claims? Or does the State protract the application process in order to focus on payment accuracy?

Now, let's consider the budgetary crisis that most of our States are in. I can guarantee you that every State agency is operating at significantly below what would be considered "fully staffed." The question now isn't about acceptable levels of payment accuracy. It's mostly, "I'm doing the best I can, Captain, but she canna take much more of this. The dilithium chrystals are going to blow." Seriously.

And with unemployment hovering around 9%, more people are applying who qualify for food stamps, subsidized housing, TANF or general assistance, or SSI from the federal government. So, we have an economy in which the Tea Party is holding Congress hostage and refusing to even entertain ways to increase government revenue. We have unemployment at about 9%. We have States that are all facing budgetary shortfalls and we have no real end in sight until the economy begins to get some traction.

It's a recipe for disaster, but it's not the leaders within the organizations. Although I'm sure that, as with everything else, there are quality leaders and some who are ineffective, the real key to all of this is Congress and each State's government. The Governors, the State legislature and the State's budgetary relationship with the Fed is driving the entire situation.

Add to this that some States less generous are viewing this as an opportunity to kill a lot of social programs. Others are bankrupting their State in efforts to save them. And then others are somewhere in between.

Sure, there ought to be more investigators. Of course there should be more case workers. But if there's no money, there are no employees. If the State is actively laying people off, where do you think these investigators are going to come from? Do they work for free? Should we ask AARP volunteers to do it? Effective, conscientious administration of a program costs money that no one is willing to spend. As a result, fraud investigation is often much lower on the priority scale than paying people who need the money when they need it.

Edit to add: I want to be clear that I'm not talking about "should" or "shouldn't." I'm talking about what is happening. Whether we should investigate, whether we should have welfare programs... I am not at all interested in those debates. I have my opinions, and everyone else has their own. What I'm commenting on above is my perception of where are are now. I've worked within the system, taking claims as well as managing others who work directly with people who are in dire need and above are my broad level observations.

 

[MJS]

No. The simple issue is funding, taxation and perceived value of a program. I'll generalize a bit for simplicity, but State welfare agencies have X dollars to administer a program. That equates directly to full time and part time employees. They get paid fixed amounts of money, within a band, so from a budget standpoint, it's easy to equate X dollars to Y number of employees. Among the tasks that these employees will accomplish are taking new applications, "emergency" or high priority applications (often homeless children are a priority as are terminally ill applicants, for example), health and safety reviews, referral services and finally, reviews for fraud and payment accuracy. Now, even in the best of times, decisions are being made about which workloads have a priority. If push comes to shove, are reviews deferred in order to process new claims? Or does the State protract the application process in order to focus on payment accuracy?

Now, let's consider the budgetary crisis that most of our States are in. I can guarantee you that every State agency is operating at significantly below what would be considered "fully staffed." The question now isn't about acceptable levels of payment accuracy. It's mostly, "I'm doing the best I can, Captain, but she canna take much more of this. The dilithium chrystals are going to blow." Seriously.

And with unemployment hovering around 9%, more people are applying who qualify for food stamps, subsidized housing, TANF or general assistance, or SSI from the federal government. So, we have an economy in which the Tea Party is holding Congress hostage and refusing to even entertain ways to increase government revenue. We have unemployment at about 9%. We have States that are all facing budgetary shortfalls and we have no real end in sight until the economy begins to get some traction.

It's a recipe for disaster, but it's not the leaders within the organizations. Although I'm sure that, as with everything else, there are quality leaders and some who are ineffective, the real key to all of this is Congress and each State's government. The Governors, the State legislature and the State's budgetary relationship with the Fed is driving the entire situation.

Add to this that some States less generous are viewing this as an opportunity to kill a lot of social programs. Others are bankrupting their State in efforts to save them. And then others are somewhere in between.

Sure, there ought to be more investigators. Of course there should be more case workers. But if there's no money, there are no employees. If the State is actively laying people off, where do you think these investigators are going to come from? Do they work for free? Should we ask AARP volunteers to do it? Effective, conscientious administration of a program costs money that no one is willing to spend. As a result, fraud investigation is often much lower on the priority scale than paying people who need the money when they need it.

Edit to add: I want to be clear that I'm not talking about "should" or "shouldn't." I'm talking about what is happening. Whether we should investigate, whether we should have welfare programs... I am not at all interested in those debates. I have my opinions, and everyone else has their own. What I'm commenting on above is my perception of where are are now. I've worked within the system, taking claims as well as managing others who work directly with people who are in dire need and above are my broad level observations.

Sure, so, like I said, its a money issue. I'm sure money is a huge issue, but I'm also sure that with some thought, this can get done. We're getting the money to shell out to X number of welfare people each money, lets get some money into a fund so we can hire people (I'm sure there're many Americans out there who're out of a job, who'd be more than happy to get paid to sift thru claims...lets bring some jobs back here, instead of shipping them over seas).