Our City Online

Messageboard - Politics

NOTE: You are viewing an archived version of the Columbus Underground forums/messageboard. As of 05/22/16 they have been closed to new comments and replies, but will remain accessible for archived searches and reference. For more information CLICK HERE

Welfare in Ohio - News & Updates

Home Forums General Columbus Discussion Politics Welfare in Ohio – News & Updates

  • This topic is empty.
Viewing 15 posts - 106 through 120 (of 144 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #497052

    DavidF
    Participant

    cheap said:
    what about proving you dont smoke cigarettes??

    I’m not a fan of that either. I don’t believe my employer is under any obligation to provide me with time/space to smoke, but outside of that, none of their business.

    BTW: I’m guessing smokes take up as much or more of assistance funds than drugs.
    Not to mention candy bars, fatty foods, etc.

    #497053
    rus
    rus
    Participant

    DavidF said:
    Umm, I’ve never claimed it would be viable. 1. positive test rates would never be a 1:1 correlation with fraud. 2. The costs of cutting off a mass of theoretical persons would likely lead only to cost shifting into law enforcement (increased crime, homelessness, perhaps even civil unrest). 3. By your own speculation 1 in 5 persons would have to test positive to even theoretically hit a point of fiscal return. Again, not likely.

    But if you are really just determined to be a jackass to me (when I thought we were past that) feel free.

    If by that you mean I’m going to disagree with you on some points, yes I am. If you take that as me being a jackass that’s your problem.

    Given what we know of fraud rates it’s possible there’s not %20 or more, sure. However, since even strengthening fraud monitoring is apparently class warfare ( fuck, really?? ) I have to wonder if there’s not some other concern.

    Are you worried the rate of fraud is significantly higher? Even if there’s five times as much fraud then that’s %5; still not viable for drug testing from what I can tell, but that doesn’t mean the current system couldn’t use better fraud controls. Even the current administration says that, so I don’t see how that’s controversial. Note that “strengthening fraud controls” does not equal “mandatory drug testing”, as in fraud controls mean more than just pee in a cup.

    You’re against drug testing in principal. Fair enough. Note that drug testing is now an accepted part of society for government and many private workers, it’s required for those accepting government contracts, etc. Good luck with exempting those on public assistance from the same sort of requirements. If we’re going to have drug testing ( and, on a similar vein, background checks ) as part of regular life then attempting to exempt one group from that is going to be unpopular. Cost / benefit ratios are useful in that.

    #497054

    DavidF
    Participant

    rus said:
    If by that you mean I’m going to disagree with you on some points, yes I am. If you take that as me being a jackass that’s your problem.

    Given what we know of fraud rates it’s possible there’s not %20 or more, sure. However, since even strengthening fraud monitoring is apparently class warfare ( fuck, really?? ) I have to wonder if there’s not some other concern.

    Are you worried the rate of fraud is significantly higher? Even if there’s five times as much fraud then that’s %5; still not viable for drug testing from what I can tell, but that doesn’t mean the current system couldn’t use better fraud controls. Even the current administration says that, so I don’t see how that’s controversial. Note that “strengthening fraud controls” does not equal “mandatory drug testing”, as in fraud controls mean more than just pee in a cup.

    You’re against drug testing in principal. Fair enough. Note that drug testing is now an accepted part of society for government and many private workers, it’s required for those accepting government contracts, etc. Good luck with exempting those on public assistance from the same sort of requirements. If we’re going to have drug testing ( and, on a similar vein, background checks ) as part of regular life then attempting to exempt one group from that is going to be unpopular. Cost / benefit ratios are useful in that.

    It’s not about exempting them. It’s about not adding yet another layer of invasiveness to their lives. And the jackass thing was about you accusing me of not following the thread because you thought I agreed about something I clearly didn’t.

    #497056
    rus
    rus
    Participant

    DavidF said:
    It’s not about exempting them. It’s about not adding yet another layer of invasiveness to their lives. And the jackass thing was about you accusing me of not following the thread because you thought I agreed about something I clearly didn’t.

    I didn’t see you clearly disagreeing. If fraud hits %20, then financially it can make sense to do drug testing.

    You may disagree that there is a fraud rate that high; I’d say it’s not proven (and therefore calls for drug testing those receiving public assistance are at best premature), but from this thread I’ve much less confidence that the existing system can even detect fraud.

    When drug testing is required by many employers, including the government and companies that accept government contracts, society has accepted drug testing as valid. If you want to scale that back, I’d suggest it’s a different argument than welfare fraud.

    #497057
    rus
    rus
    Participant

    http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/dayton-news/food-stamp-fraud-targeted-1381123.html

    The Daily News’ investigation prompted state Auditor Dave Yost to evaluate the food stamp program, which is administered by the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services. His office determined that ODJFS reissued 340,000 cards in fiscal year 2011, and it reissued 10 or more cards to more than 17,000 recipients since March 2006. One person received as many as 75 new cards.

    Yost said ODJFS did not have policies and procedures for monitoring, identifying and combating fraud related to replacing food stamp cards. His office recommended that the agency request statistical data from the provider of its card services to better identify potential fraudulent activity.

    Johnson, the ODJFS spokesman, said his agency had conversations with the USDA about making the very changes it now proposes. Johnson said people with unusually high replacement card requests are already flagged and reported for review, but the USDA proposal will allow the state to both better identify potential fraud and identify honest recipients who may need help managing their benefits.

    Johnson said his agency also plans to more closely monitor unusual EBT transactions, such as area residents spending all of their benefits in out-of-state locations.

    “We pursue fraud very aggressively,” he said.

    No policies for investigating fraud related to replacing food stamp cards. Yeah, that %1 fraud rate is looking a little low.

    #497058

    DavidF
    Participant

    rus said:
    http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/dayton-news/food-stamp-fraud-targeted-1381123.html

    The Daily News’ investigation prompted state Auditor Dave Yost to evaluate the food stamp program, which is administered by the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services. His office determined that ODJFS reissued 340,000 cards in fiscal year 2011, and it reissued 10 or more cards to more than 17,000 recipients since March 2006. One person received as many as 75 new cards.

    Yost said ODJFS did not have policies and procedures for monitoring, identifying and combating fraud related to replacing food stamp cards. His office recommended that the agency request statistical data from the provider of its card services to better identify potential fraudulent activity.

    Johnson, the ODJFS spokesman, said his agency had conversations with the USDA about making the very changes it now proposes. Johnson said people with unusually high replacement card requests are already flagged and reported for review, but the USDA proposal will allow the state to both better identify potential fraud and identify honest recipients who may need help managing their benefits.

    Johnson said his agency also plans to more closely monitor unusual EBT transactions, such as area residents spending all of their benefits in out-of-state locations.

    “We pursue fraud very aggressively,” he said.

    No policies for investigating fraud related to replacing food stamp cards. Yeah, that %1 fraud rate is looking a little low.

    And here is an area where it would seem minimal resources could be effective at getting at fraud without requiring people to pee in a cup.

    #497059

    rus said:
    http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/dayton-news/food-stamp-fraud-targeted-1381123.html

    The Daily News’ investigation prompted state Auditor Dave Yost to evaluate the food stamp program, which is administered by the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services. His office determined that ODJFS reissued 340,000 cards in fiscal year 2011, and it reissued 10 or more cards to more than 17000 recipients since March 2006. One person received as many as 75 new cards.

    Yost said ODJFS did not have policies and procedures for monitoring, identifying and combating fraud related to replacing food stamp cards. His office recommended that the agency request statistical data from the provider of its card services to better identify potential fraudulent activity.

    Johnson, the ODJFS spokesman, said his agency had conversations with the USDA about making the very changes it now proposes. Johnson said people with unusually high replacement card requests are already flagged and reported for review, but the USDA proposal will allow the state to both better identify potential fraud and identify honest recipients who may need help managing their benefits.

    Johnson said his agency also plans to more closely monitor unusual EBT transactions, such as area residents spending all of their benefits in out-of-state locations.

    “We pursue fraud very aggressively,” he said.

    No policies for investigating fraud related to replacing food stamp cards. Yeah, that %1 fraud rate is looking a little low.

    Like I said earlier a lot of people are commenting without any knowledge of the system or how it is gamed. If davidf really thinks fraud is at 1%, he is very naive to the workings of government assistance. I guess that is actually a good thing.

    #497060

    DavidF
    Participant

    local champion said:
    Like I said earlier a lot of people are commenting without any knowledge of the system or how it is gamed. If davidf really thinks fraud is at 1%, he is very naive to the workings of government assistance. I guess that is actually a good thing.

    Sigh. I never claimed it was at 1%. Nice try though.

    I guess you asked for it then. So, tell me, what gives you special insight into the actual amount of fraud in the system. You’ve claimed no personal knowledge of fraud. So where does your information come from? If you’re just talking from your gut, then stop claiming you have inside knowledge of how the system is gamed.

    I’ve never claimed any definitive knowledge, and in fact the only thing I have conceded is that it would have to be pretty high to fiscally justify this type of draconian policy and even then I doubt you would save anything across the government as a whole.

    And please, please don’t act victimized again because I had the temerity to question your knowledge. You’ve shown no hesitation to question mine and keep implying you have some sort of inside knowledge.

    #497061

    Graybeak
    Participant

    The 1% figure comes from multiple news stories explaining the problem of the SNAP program. That is the estimated figure given by the government agencies themselves.

    #497062

    30 yrs of foodstamps tells me its much higher. Being around section 8 neighbors all day tells me its higher. In business you might defer to someone with 30 yrs of experience for his take on a situation when there is no reliable quantitative data available. The same is true in this situation.

    No one was upset because of your questions; I was upset because of your criminal accusations. I just find it funny you seem to be an advocate for the poor, but when someone that is poor has a different opinion than yours, you vilify them and say they must be a criminal.

    #497063

    DavidF
    Participant

    local champion said:
    30 yrs of foodstamps tells me its much higher. Being around section 8 neighbors all day tells me its higher. In business you might defer to someone with 30 yrs of experience for his take on a situation when there is no reliable quantitative data available. The same is true in this situation.

    No one was upset because of your questions; I was upset because of your criminal accusations. I just find it funny you seem to be an advocate for the poor, but when someone that is poor has a different opinion than yours, you vilify them and say they must be a criminal.

    See, once again you’re don’t seem to be reading so well. I’m absolutely sure you’re telling the truth about your personal, highly anecdotal experience. However, you then seem to want to turn that into a generalization about the pervasiveness of fraud in the system as a whole. I simply want to know where you get this information.

    Oh, and I didn’t vilify a poor person who disagreed with me, I vilified you. (for which I apologized) I have no way of knowing if you are a poor person or not.

    And in business, I never take the word of someone who I only know of through a few random posts.

    Credibility takes time. Ask me in a year and I might say you’re an absolutely reliable source of information. Right now, I don’t know you so you’re sweeping generalization are gonna get questioned.

    #497065
    rus
    rus
    Participant

    Graybeak said:
    The 1% figure comes from multiple news stories explaining the problem of the SNAP program. That is the estimated figure given by the government agencies themselves.

    Yes.

    Seems like that estimate has to be low, though. If no one is currently investigating card replacement as possible fraud then such fraud would be undetected and uncounted.

    Should be simple enough to review transaction history at least. For those with multiple card issuance, compare the zip code of the cardholder to the purchase location. Where the transaction occurred, say, 20+ miles from the cardholders residence flag as suspicious. Further investigation would be required but could narrow down a list of possibles to something manageable.

    #497066

    DavidF
    Participant

    rus said:
    Yes.

    Seems like that estimate has to be low, though. If no one is currently investigating card replacement as possible fraud then such fraud would be undetected and uncounted.

    Should be simple enough to review transaction history at least. For those with multiple card issuance, compare the zip code of the cardholder to the purchase location. Where the transaction occurred, say, 20+ miles from the cardholders residence flag as suspicious. Further investigation would be required but could narrow down a list of possibles to something manageable.

    And nobody would need to pee in a cup to combat this type of fraud.

    #497067
    rus
    rus
    Participant

    DavidF said:
    And nobody would need to pee in a cup to combat this type of fraud.

    Because those on public assistance should be spared the indignity of being treated like government employees, employees of government contractors, etc.

    #497068

    DavidF said:
    See, once again you’re don’t seem to be reading so well. I’m absolutely sure you’re telling the truth about your personal, highly anecdotal experience. However, you then seem to want to turn that into a generalization about the pervasiveness of fraud in the system as a whole. I simply want to know where you get this information.

    Oh, and I didn’t vilify a poor person who disagreed with me, I vilified you. (for which I apologized) I have no way of knowing if you are a poor person or not.

    And in business, I never take the word of someone who I only know of through a few random posts.

    Credibility takes time. Ask me in a year and I might say you’re an absolutely reliable source of information. Right now, I don’t know you so you’re sweeping generalization are gonna get questioned.

    Fair enough then.

Viewing 15 posts - 106 through 120 (of 144 total)

The forum ‘Politics’ is closed to new topics and replies.

Subscribe below: