Can this happen? can we stop it?

[kitester]

Yesterday I was listening to a radio news program and there was a story about medicade fraud. It seems that hundreds of doctors, nurses and other health care professionals were bilking the government through its own system. The most glaring examples were billing for procedures in the name of deceased patients or billing for an excess of 24 hours in a 24 hour period.  It has always been a problem that with any large governmental program there is waste and inefficiency. As our stricken economy has tightened its grip on our population its also strangling these governmental programs to the point of collapse. As we watch our president and other elected officials wrestle with these struggling programs I began to wonder if what is needed is not just a top down approach but a bottom up redesign as well. Lets face it.  Humans are the most prolific species on the planet. We are “wired” to learn and adapt. In general, we find the easiest rout to what we think are the best results. But, sometimes, that wiring and learned behavior takes us in the wrong direction. And often our own values get in the way of real change and progress. That change and progress may need to come at the sacrifice of some of our deepest values and convictions.   

Some years ago I dated a girl who worked for HRS. I learned a few very disturbing things about how our system is being worked by people. I was told that it was common practice for men who had little or no education to have as many children by as many women as possible. The result was the government ended up paying the women a certain amount each month for each child they had. The father would show up and collect “his cut” of these funds. Now this was money for the children which is a good thing but in reality these men were making a “living” by creating more mouths to feed and then stealing that money from those very mouths.  And it was so much a part of that life style that it was accepted as a legitimate way of life. She told me that if there was any hold up or glitch in the delivery of that government funding the people who were abusing the system would scream and shout (literally) in her office about how they were entitled and how they wanted “their” money. What had happened (and may still be happening) was that those people had been educated in the way of the system and how to exploit it. It was all they knew and all those children would ever know. And as the years have passed those practiced in this exploitation have learned to refine the techniques necessary to twist the system and drain those ever diminishing funds.  Several weeks ago I learned about the latest version of this long running scam.  I was talking to a man about work, you know the thing most of us do for gainful employment. We talked about how we had been the victims of theft, how our business had diminished over the last several years and how hard it was to find anyone willing to do real work. And that led us to the topic of how some people are making a “living” today.  He talked of a woman he knew or worked for. He is a sort of handyman and she hired him from time to time. She was always home, owned a very nice house, drove a very nice car and dressed well.  Impressed by her lifestyle, he asked her what she did for a living. Her single word reply was “breadwinner.”  Most of us know that the bread winner of a household is the person who goes out to the job, office, market or performs contract labor and is paid for their time and effort. But in this case it had a different meaning. As she explained it the breadwinner was the person who collected the most money from the government. According to her (and remember that this all third party) she had three daughters. When they began to have children she would call child services and claim that her daughter was unfit to be a mother. That is when the system goes into full swing.  The state stepped in and removed the child from the home of the mother. The grand mother then applied for custody and because she was related and better than foster care she was given custody. Along with that custody she applied for financial aid from the state and receives $5000.00 per month. Now, to be completely fair, that may not have been planned the first time. But there it is. She now has had all of her daughters declared unfit. Each time one of them has a child the state intervenes and places the child into the custody of the grand mother. Each child represents a $5000.00 check per month. My understanding is that there are more than five children for which she collects 5K each month each. Now I don’t have any children having made that decision years ago. But I bet that it doesn’t cost $5000.00 a month to house and feed a (healthy) child This woman supposedly is receiving over $25000.00 per month. Now here is the real kicker. Not one of those children live with her in her home! My guess is that she doles out enough money to the mothers to keep them in shoes, bread and milk (and babies) and pockets the rest. Now, as I said before, this is a third hand story and no real way to corroborate it. I even found some similar stories on the net that were discounted as urban legends. But it sounds just crazy enough to be true.  The real deep seriousness of the issue comes when you begin to understand that this is a “self replicating Virus.” If it was just one individual or even one generation involved the loss would be bad but not critical. But in this story we have three generations and multiple individuals who are becoming educated in how to twist and use the system to achieve what the rest of us would call fraud. Except that its not technically fraud. The state set it up and willingly provides for those children who will produce more children for the state to take care of. And every time the money changes hands a portion is skimmed off so that the child probably receives just enough to get by. They in turn look up the role model of the “breadwinner” and learn to cheat a system that should be there for those in real need. And lets not forget that these programs were never intended to be a way of life. They are there as a safety net for people and families who fall on hard times. Situations like this wear the fabric of that net thin to the point of braking. Any family fully dependant on this system as a way of life is living on the end of a dead branch and when it brakes there wont be another net of money to catch them. I heard a comedian recently state that he could fix the system. All we have to do is be willing to work really hard all our lives and then die. As he put it our system was built around the premise that social services for the retired would only need to provide for people for a few years because people only lived a short time after they retired. Now people are living well into the 80s and our system cant handle that. 

So how can we redesign the system to make it less susceptible to abuse? It would not be impossible to slam on the breaks now. It would leave many who are not responsible for their own situation, i.e. the children,  in limbo without any help. I think the only way is to phase out the old programs and phase in new ones. I hate the idea of socialized anything but it may be the only way. There is really only one underlying problem. There are too many people. It’s really that plain and simple. The planet and the government simply can’t handle the weight of our population any longer and we must “decrease the surplus population.” There I said it. Procreation is one of the strongest and most sacred of driving human principals. We cant seem to stop. But what if we stop paying people to have children. Make it an advantage not to have offspring. Perhaps we can offer incentives or tax breaks to those who remain childless. Imagine our previously mentioned examples. Would the people in  question be inclined to have more children if it meant the loss of their own finical well being. What if we had an expensive licensing process for people who wanted to have children. We could still have programs to help the children. Discounted food and clothing for the children. The parents would still have to feed and clothe themselves. That way if you really want a child the decision is less of a burden financially but abuse would be eliminated because there would be no financial gain from it.  All this goes against the very fabric of our being and society. But hard choices may need to be made before its too late.

[Noone]

Welfare- The Govt. will pay you if you don't work.
Glorified Welfare-2005-1007
Our city is broke
501-c- So as to have the ability to stick your hand out.

[ChriswUfGator]

Welfare- The Govt. will pay you if you don't work.
Glorified Welfare-2005-1007
Our city is broke
501-c- So as to have the ability to stick your hand out.

In fairness, at least they're buying food instead of a recreational pier with public money, no? What's the difference?

[Garden guy]

As with any complex organizations with complex systems there are those that learn where the holes are and work the weakness of that system...look at how Michele Bachman is charging the government for treating people to turn them from gay to straight...she got paid for that bs...there is loss and thievery and mismanagement of public funds everywhere...that's where regulations come in...and not selfregulation.

[ChriswUfGator]

LMAO Bachmann runs one of those "save the gays" camps? I didn't know that...too funny!

[Noone]

Welfare- The Govt. will pay you if you don't work.
Glorified Welfare-2005-1007
Our city is broke
501-c- So as to have the ability to stick your hand out.

In fairness, at least they're buying food instead of a recreational pier with public money, no? What's the difference?

Big difference. 2011-560 pending legislation. Will be on the agenda at city council in 4 days. Look it up Chris. Shipyards/Landmar.

Would you like to kayak Hogans Creek?

[ChriswUfGator]

Welfare- The Govt. will pay you if you don't work.
Glorified Welfare-2005-1007
Our city is broke
501-c- So as to have the ability to stick your hand out.

In fairness, at least they're buying food instead of a recreational pier with public money, no? What's the difference?

Big difference. 2011-560 pending legislation. Will be on the agenda at city council in 4 days. Look it up Chris. Shipyards/Landmar.

Would you like to kayak Hogans Creek?

What is the philosophical difference between using public funds to improve the quality of life for one private citizen vs. another? At the heart of it, how is using public money to improve the quality of your life by building the public pier you want any different from using public funds to improve the quality of life of a welfare recipient? How, exactly, are those not two shades of the same color? They can't be different simply because one personally benefits you and the other doesn't.

Regarding kayaking, not sure if you noticed my avatar or not, but it's not really my speed. No fridge to chill the bourbon, no head, no a/c, hell you even have to paddle the damn thing yourself. It's downright barbaric when you think about it.

[Noone]

You two are like a tag team. Chris have you participated in a Pub Crawl? Whens the next one?
Look up 2011-560. Its ready for council in 3 days. You guys are sharp. Argue that 1/2 of 2011-560 goes to the City Rescue Mission. Make it Happen. I'll support you. It will require legislative action by the Mayor or a council person.

Obviously, I'm not having any luck with my greedy, own self serving attempts at providing Public Access and  economic opportunity  for the people of Jacksonville on our St. Johns River our American Heritage River.



                                   

[ChriswUfGator]

You two are like a tag team. Chris have you participated in a Pub Crawl? Whens the next one?
Look up 2011-560. Its ready for council in 3 days. You guys are sharp. Argue that 1/2 of 2011-560 goes to the City Rescue Mission. Make it Happen. I'll support you. It will require legislative action by the Mayor or a council person.

Obviously, I'm not having any luck with my greedy, own self serving attempts at providing Public Access and  economic opportunity  for the people of Jacksonville on our St. Johns River our American Heritage River.
                               

Well I just think it's an interesting contradiction, don't you?  I suppose it really boils down to your definition of 'welfare' doesn't it? Speaking personally, I don't have any problems accessing the river, it is in my front yard. And it's been a decade since I've had a boat small enough to be launched without a travelift, let alone at a public access ramp. So I guess, in a sense, your desire for public river access strikes me as welfare. How would it not be? After all, I pay for my own river access, why shouldn't you? Just applying your logic here, after all.

As for what I'm actually concerned with, I'm much more concerned about the effects on individuals, and society generally, if you have no safety net to put a roof over the heads of starving people. Which, if you didn't realize, is what City Rescue Mission does. What do you think would happen if that kind of facility did not exist? Do you truly believe that nobody would be homeless or hungry simply because no assistance option is available? If the only choice available to someone in that position were death by starvation, hypothermia, pneumonia, etc., vs. crime to obtain food and shelter, then what do you think most people would choose? You don't think we should have a general interest in the welfare of others, if for no other reason than maintaining an orderly society? If you're a broadway fan, you should remember that les miserables ends in revolution. That's the situation you're creating.

And I find all this funny, because if I were you, I'd be saying "you should have river access when you can afford it. Until then it isn't my problem." Except we aren't talking about public piers and boat access, your contradiction is rather more insipid, as it involves for some folks the literal difference between starvation and subsistence. Until you can address these self-serving contradictions in your political philosophies, then please explain why what YOU want isn't welfare? Why shouldn't you pay for your own river access, like I do?

[hillary supporter]

Re kitester,
My thoughts for you are to contact your congressional reps and express yourself as you have here. Let them know how you feel. Personally, ive seen the experience of "breadwinner" and as time passes, it catches up with them and the good times become bad. It becomes impossible to resist corrupting the system and they end up "crossing the line.'
I personally experiencesd a incident like that but in a different outcome.
I was working at a printing shop and we had hired a young unwed mother of four at close to minimum wage. She was an african american woman (which means nothing except many prejudice themselves as this being symbolic of the african american community). She was small and such a hard worker, we all thought the world of her. And she was the best to ever do her job, even as menial as it was.
One day, she came to us and announced that she was leaving as she had contacted social services and she would have much more money to raise her children on welfare than as she worked for much less. So she left and i have no doubt she did her best to raise her family but we wont know how it resulted.
Anyhow, the system we have in place does change, but only when constituants like yourself voice your opinions to your reps and let them know.
Other than that, theres little i myself can tell you as our democracy.... "greatest good for greatest number" is  pretty bad, terrible.   But its the best we got!...... W.S. Churchill

[ChriswUfGator]

Re kitester,
My thoughts for you are to contact your congressional reps and express yourself as you have here. Let them know how you feel. Personally, ive seen the experience of "breadwinner" and as time passes, it catches up with them and the good times become bad. It becomes impossible to resist corrupting the system and they end up "crossing the line.'
I personally experiencesd a incident like that but in a different outcome.
I was working at a printing shop and we had hired a young unwed mother of four at close to minimum wage. She was an african american woman (which means nothing except many prejudice themselves as this being symbolic of the african american community). She was small and such a hard worker, we all thought the world of her. And she was the best to ever do her job, even as menial as it was.
One day, she came to us and announced that she was leaving as she had contacted social services and she would have much more money to raise her children on welfare than as she worked for much less. So she left and i have no doubt she did her best to raise her family but we wont know how it resulted.
Anyhow, the system we have in place does change, but only when constituants like yourself voice your opinions to your reps and let them know.
Other than that, theres little i myself can tell you as our democracy.... "greatest good for greatest number" is  pretty bad, terrible.   But its the best we got!...... W.S. Churchill

So because your business refused to pay a single mother with 4 kids a living wage, she was ultimately forced to leave and found she could actually better support her kids on welfare than the minimum-wage paycheck you offered. And that is somehow evidence that the welfare system is broken? LMFAO...

Sounds like it did its job to me. If she was a great employee, which you acknowledge, then the owner should have offered her more money, especially knowing her family situation. This to me says a lot more about your business and hiring practices than it does about anything else. If you find that you are being headhunted...embarassingly enough by welfare...then there's something wrong with your business practices, that isn't going to be fixed by eliminating welfare so that your employees have no other option when their paycheck is insufficient to live on. That's essentially slave-labor.

It's not your fault she had 4 kids, but then again you knew that going in. Not sure how this is a reason for welfare reform?

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

Without HS having to fill in some blanks, let's look at it this way:

Why did she have to quit her job to receive assitance?  If she is unable to get a job that pays more than minimum wage, due to lack of education, language barriers, experience, why is the system rewarding her for NOT working?

IMO, it's people like her that should receive the most assistance.  She works her 40, does a good job with it and in turn the gov't rewards her by making up the difference she needs to support her and her family.  She should have to supply pay-stubs to receive her help and length of service AT ONE JOB should warrant more assistance. If you don't work, there needs to be documented reasons why.  And instead of don't / won't it needs to be can't work. 

The flaw in the system, as HS is trying to say, is that she received more by staying unemployed than by working.  It's the backwards logic used by social services that needs to be corrected not employers paying more for jobs that don't warrant it.

[hillary supporter]

Without HS having to fill in some blanks, let's look at it this way:

Why did she have to quit her job to receive assitance?  If she is unable to get a job that pays more than minimum wage, due to lack of education, language barriers, experience, why is the system rewarding her for NOT working?

IMO, it's people like her that should receive the most assistance.  She works her 40, does a good job with it and in turn the gov't rewards her by making up the difference she needs to support her and her family.  She should have to supply pay-stubs to receive her help and length of service AT ONE JOB should warrant more assistance. If you don't work, there needs to be documented reasons why.  And instead of don't / won't it needs to be can't work. 

The flaw in the system, as HS is trying to say, is that she received more by staying unemployed than by working.  It's the backwards logic used by social services that needs to be corrected not employers paying more for jobs that don't warrant it.

Exactly..... Chris, ive sited a first hand  example where the system worked....... if one has a problem with it contact your rep and express yourself on it.
Another alternative is to provide social services to care for the children while the woman works. Have the government intervene and pay the woman a fair wage" according to her needs". Like in socialists countries.
But thats pure socialism, unacceptable in todays America.
Thats the democracy we have and i wont humor you with the Churchill quote.

[Dog Walker]

Maybe they should have provided free birth control for her before she had four kids!

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

Maybe they should have provided free birth control for her before she had four kids!

Free birth 'control' is provided.

Free birth 'you're not going to have another baby, no matter what choice your make, until your situation gets better' is not.