News Republicans no longer a viable party?

[WhoWee]

Yes ...
Statutory Caps ...
Repeal CLASS Act.
Shift to CPI .. exempt SSI ...

I don't see anything in there that adds up to an immediate cut of anywhere near $500B.

It sounded like and "smoke and mirrors" to me as well - let's see what kind of impact Coburn has now that he's re-joined the group.

 

[turbo]

David Brooks is at it again. The GOP is dysfunctional, and is in the sway of ideologues. I think he's right. IMO, any Republican that votes in favor of tax increases is going to find themselves facing a tea-partier in the next primary, financed by Grover Norquist and his organization. Thanks to SCOTUS' Citizens United decision, hapless incumbents could find themselves outgunned and outspent.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/19/opinion/19brooks.html

 

[WhoWee]

Somehow I find it strange that President Obama is so willing to embrace Mitch McConnell - unless Harry Reid thinks he has him "in-hand"? McConnell wasn't exactly gentle this week on the floor.
http://mcconnell.senate.gov/public/...ecord_id=8fb4c641-3b8c-48e9-af40-72389ad4d61b

"“Two years of reckless spending and debt have brought us to the point of crisis. And this week, Americans will see how their elected representatives decide to resolve it.

“On the one side are those who believe that failing to rein in spending now could be calamitous, and that a government which borrows 42 cents for every dollar it spends needs to sober up. Washington needs strong medicine to heal its spending addiction now, not a false promise of it later.

“And on the other side are those who want to pretend the status quo is acceptable — that everything will be fine if we freeze current habits in place, raise job-killing taxes on small businesses, and do nothing about the long term fiscal imbalance that imperils our economy.

“Republicans have tried to persuade the President of the need for a course correction, but weeks of negotiations have shown that his commitment to big government is simply too great to lead to the kind of long-term reforms we need to put us on a path to balance and economic growth.

“So we’ve decided to bring our case to the American people.

“And that’s why this week, Republicans in the House and the Senate will push for legislation that would cut government spending now, cap it in the future, and which only raises the debt limit if it’s accompanied by a constitutional amendment to balance the federal budget.

“The Cut, Cap, and Balance plan is the kind of strong medicine Washington needs and the American people want — and Republicans in both houses of Congress will be pushing it aggressively this week. "

 

[WhoWee]

As a follow up - perhaps the Republicans should declare the real long term debt ceiling requirements given President Obama's runaway spending - start a discussion of a $20Trillion debt ceiling and send it to the President to sign - let him own the number?

 

[turbo]

Two years of reckless spending and debt have brought us to the point of crisis. And this week, Americans will see how their elected representatives decide to resolve it.

The "reckless spending" is not Obama's fault. He doesn't author spending bills - Congress does. Much of the "reckless spending" is the result of W's wars and unfettered military spending. We should also remember that when Wall Street scammed us into a recession (with little or no oversight by the SEC) people lost jobs and Federal revenues dropped at the same time that the unemployed increased the load on unemployment pay-outs, and many families fell into the Medicaid system. It is pretty standard for the GOP to try to hang all that on Obama when in fact it all originated with W. We'll see if the voters are stupid enough to buy that in 2012. Obama is playing a very futile (IMO) game of catch-up, with an opposition party that is determined to deny him any success at all - even at the expense of the US economy and our bond-rating. Lowered bond-ratings will cost us even more money to service our debt and the GOP doesn't care, as long as they score points.

 

[WhoWee]

The "reckless spending" is not Obama's fault. He doesn't author spending bills - Congress does. Much of the "reckless spending" is the result of W's wars and unfettered military spending. We should also remember that when Wall Street scammed us into a recession (with little or no oversight by the SEC) people lost jobs and Federal revenues dropped at the same time that the unemployed increased the load on unemployment pay-outs, and many families fell into the Medicaid system. It is pretty standard for the GOP to try to hang all that on Obama when in fact it all originated with W. We'll see if the voters are stupid enough to buy that in 2012. Obama is playing a very futile (IMO) game of catch-up, with an opposition party that is determined to deny him any success at all - even at the expense of the US economy and our bond-rating. Lowered bond-ratings will cost us even more money to service our debt and the GOP doesn't care, as long as they score points.

The post you responded to stated "two years of reckless spending and debt" - and your response is it's not Obama's fault - that "W" is at fault? I'm going to label your response trolling - IMO.

 

[turbo]

The post you responded to stated "two years of reckless spending and debt" - and your response is it's not Obama's fault - that "W" is at fault? I'm going to label your response trolling - IMO.

Edited to attribute to McConnell.

 

[WhoWee]

Edited to attribute to McConnell.

What does that mean?

 

[turbo]

What does that mean?

I edited the post to indicate that McConnell made those statements, not you.

 

[SixNein]

I'm in favor of helping people that can not work because of illness. I am not in favor of helping people that choose to abuse drugs and alcohol and choose not to work. The requirements for Social Security Disability are quite inclusive with an increased chance of abuse of benefits. What do you disagree with as per my point?

Where is your evidence that bipolar disability is being abused?

 

[SixNein]

Somehow I find it strange that President Obama is so willing to embrace Mitch McConnell - unless Harry Reid thinks he has him "in-hand"? McConnell wasn't exactly gentle this week on the floor."[/I]

There is nothing strange about it honestly. I'm sure Obama realizes that McConnell is doing a little political theatre for his base. If he doesn't appeal to some of those tea party fanatics, his bill could get locked up in the house.

Voters are not always right, but it's the politicians job to make them think their right.

 

[lisab]

I'm in favor of helping people that can not work because of illness. I am not in favor of helping people that choose to abuse drugs and alcohol and choose not to work. The requirements for Social Security Disability are quite inclusive with an increased chance of abuse of benefits. What do you disagree with as per my point?

My admittedly limited experience with getting on SS disability is that it's really tough, even with a legitimate reason. Someone I know has a disease that is causing her spine to crumble. It took *years* to convince SS that she was too disabled to work (she could barely stand for 1 minute by the time her case was approved!).

Btw - her case took so long to approve because SS said she did not have a long enough record of seeing a doctor to treat it, despite "claiming" she was in crippling pain for years. And why had she not seen a doctor? Because she worked in a nursing home and had no health insurance. How's that for a catch-22 ?

 

[WhoWee]

Where is your evidence that bipolar disability is being abused?

Haven't you twisted that question a bit - should that be classified a troll or a strawman?

You quoted me as saying "The requirements for Social Security Disability are quite inclusive with an increased chance of abuse of benefits. What do you disagree with as per my point?". I said there is an increased chance of abuse - not that I have evidence.

 

[WhoWee]

My admittedly limited experience with getting on SS disability is that it's really tough, even with a legitimate reason. Someone I know has a disease that is causing her spine to crumble. It took *years* to convince SS that she was too disabled to work (she could barely stand for 1 minute by the time her case was approved!).

Btw - her case took so long to approve because SS said she did not have a long enough record of seeing a doctor to treat it, despite "claiming" she was in crippling pain for years. And why had she not seen a doctor? Because she worked in a nursing home and had no health insurance. How's that for a catch-22 ?

What do you think the likelihood the process to verify her legitimate benefits was slowed by questionable claims? I had a friend who paid the maximum Social Security for 25+ years, broke his back on the job and died waiting on Disability.

 

[turbo]

My admittedly limited experience with getting on SS disability is that it's really tough, even with a legitimate reason. Someone I know has a disease that is causing her spine to crumble. It took *years* to convince SS that she was too disabled to work (she could barely stand for 1 minute by the time her case was approved!).

Btw - her case took so long to approve because SS said she did not have a long enough record of seeing a doctor to treat it, despite "claiming" she was in crippling pain for years. And why had she not seen a doctor? Because she worked in a nursing home and had no health insurance. How's that for a catch-22 ?

Try pursuing a legitimate disability claim with fantastic documentation through that system. You will get rejected over and over again by every level until you are forced to pay lawyers to get you through the last appeal with an administrative-law judge. Does anybody here think that this is easy or cheap and that disabled people are scamming the SS system? If you have been through the system, I guarantee that you will not think this. Unfortunately, the same nuts that sold the "welfare queen" paradigm to the US voters have convinced most of the "liberal" media that such SS scams are par for the course.

 

[WhoWee]

Try pursuing a legitimate disability claim with fantastic documentation through that system. You will get rejected over and over again by every level until you are forced to pay lawyers to get you through the last appeal with an administrative-law judge. Does anybody here think that this is easy or cheap and that disabled people are scamming the SS system? If you have been through the system, I guarantee that you will not think this. Unfortunately, the same nuts that sold the "welfare queen" paradigm to the US voters have convinced most of the "liberal" media that such SS scams are par for the course.

Again turbo - the benefits need to be saved for legitimate claims. Legitimate people don't know how to "game" the system - they have a difficult time - can we agree on that point?

 

[lisab]

What do you think the likelihood the process to verify her legitimate benefits was slowed by questionable claims? I had a friend who paid the maximum Social Security for 25+ years, broke his back on the job and died waiting on Disability.

I really have no idea - certainly there are some bogus claims. But the SSD process is so labyrinthine and the ultimate payoff is almost a pittance, there must be lower-hanging fruit for "hard-working" criminals to pick.

 

[turbo]

Again turbo - the benefits need to be saved for legitimate claims. Legitimate people don't know how to "game" the system - they have a difficult time - can we agree on that point?

These endless distractions that you and others have brought up are all off-topic. Are the Republicans an actual viable political party?

If you want to start a thread about how drunks can game SS, please feel free. Also please be prepared to provide some supporting documentation, because you will be challenged.

 

[WhoWee]

I really have no idea - certainly there are some bogus claims. But the SSD process is so labyrinthine and the ultimate payoff is almost a pittance, there must be lower-hanging fruit for "hard-working" criminals to pick.

I used to think that way until the reality of the cumulative amount of benefits for a professional scammer became apparent. In addition to disability payments, there are food stamps, medicaid, and subsidized housing - to name a few. Add to that any qualifications for EITC, child credit or making work pay (redistribution) credits ( I believe a $1.00 tax return is the requirement?).

Then, the master jewel for the real criminal element - do it in pairs and live happily ever after on the Government dole - total value maybe $60,000 per year? Please label this entire post IMO.

 

[Hurkyl]

These endless distractions that you and others have brought up are all off-topic. Are the Republicans an actual viable political party?

Did anyone ever present a reason to think otherwise? If so I missed it in the distractions.

 

[turbo]

I used to think that way until the reality of the cumulative amount of benefits for a professional scammer became apparent. In addition to disability payments, there are food stamps, medicaid, and subsidized housing - to name a few. Add to that any qualifications for EITC, child credit or making work pay (redistribution) credits ( I believe a $1.00 tax return is the requirement?).

Then, the master jewel for the real criminal element - do it in pairs and live happily ever after on the Government dole - total value maybe $60,000 per year? Please label this entire post IMO.

Please support your claims of the wholesale fraud in federal programs with some real documentation. Not Beck, Limbaugh, etc, but some documented accounting that we can double-check.

 

[WhoWee]

Did anyone ever present a reason to think otherwise? If so I missed it in the distractions.

Again, Coburn and McConnell are both back in the game in the Senate - the House Republicans are not alone - we will soon see the results.

 

[mheslep]

$60B/year medicare and medicaid fraud.
AG Holder - "Every year we lose tens of billions": http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2009/May/09-ag-491.html

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124586523348648621.html"- "By some estimates, more than $60 billion each year is lost to fraud."

Large enough to qualify as wholesale.

 

[WhoWee]

Please support your claims of the wholesale fraud in federal programs with some real documentation. Not Beck, Limbaugh, etc, but some documented accounting that we can double-check.

Cut the crap turbo - I labeled the entire post IMO. If you think there is no fraud in the SS system - you're entitled to that opinion as well. Why don't you support your strawman claim that I'm quoting Beck, Limbaugh, etc.

Maybe we should move this discussion of fraud in Social Security claims to another thread.

 

[Hurkyl]

Cut the crap turbo - I labeled the entire post IMO.

That doesn't make you exempt from being called out for talking out of your rear end.

 

[WhoWee]

for turbo
http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usab5206.pdf

"III. Impact of fraud on the SSA benefits
p r og rams
The Ti t l e I I progr ams have suf f e red
s ig n i fi c an t ep i so d e s o f fr a u d , a n d th e c o st s t o th e
S o c ia l S e c u ri ty tr u s t f u n d s c a n n o l o n ge r b e
ignor ed. One who wrongful ly appl i e s for and/or
receives benefits payments under any of the Title
II programs may be subject to criminal liability
under 42 U.S.C. § 408(a)(1)-(8), which sets forth
penalties for felony fraud violations un der Title II
o f th e Ac t . T h e S o c ia l S e c u ri ty fe l on y fr a u d
statute can be used separately or in concert with
g e n e ra l f e d er a l c r imi n a l s ta t u te s fo u n d i n T it le 1 8 ,
to pros e cut e f r aud in bene f i ts progr ams . A key
risk factor in Title II programs are individ uals
w h o fe ig n or ex a gg er at e s ym p to m s t o b e co m e
eligible for disability benefits, and those who fail
to r epor t change s in r e sour c es or othe r
circumstances that would make a recipient of Title
I I bene f i t s ine l igibl e to cont inue to r e c e ive
payments. Eligibility for the Title II programs is
often complex and difficu lt to verify, and SSA's
abi l i ty to prope r ly de t e rmine a r e c ipi ent 's ini ti a l
and continued eligibility, an d the correct month ly
b e n e fi t d u e th a t r e ci p ie n t , i s d i re c tl y d e p e n d en t
u p o n S SA' s o n g o in g a c ce s s t o ac c u ra t e a n d
current information regarding the recipient."

 

[lisab]

$60B/year medicare and medicaid fraud.
AG Holder - "Every year we lose tens of billions": http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2009/May/09-ag-491.html

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124586523348648621.html"- "By some estimates, more than $60 billion each year is lost to fraud."

Large enough to qualify as wholesale.

I think the fraud mentioned in that link is due to things like charging for services that are never delivered, etc. In other words, it's perpetrated by providers.

The kind of SS fraud WhoWee and I were discussing is "front door" fraud, i.e. bogus claims by individuals who are capable of working but try to scam the system. My (albeit limited) experience with SS is, it's harder to get a bogus claim approved than people think.

 

[WhoWee]

I apologize for the garbled text - please see page 3 of my link.

 

[turbo]

My (albeit limited) experience with SS is, it's harder to get a bogus claim approved than people think.

MUCH harder than most people think! Much harder. Legitimate claims get denied over and over again through many levels of review until you end up before an Administrative Law judge. Then, SS has to pay for the 5+ years of denied benefits. Been there, done that.

 

[turbo]

BTW, why aren't we discussing the viability of the GOP instead of getting derailed continuously with claims that the US is being being defrauded by people who are poor or disabled

 

[WhoWee]

BTW, why aren't we discussing the viability of the GOP instead of getting derailed continuously with claims that the US is being being defrauded by people who are poor or disabled

Didn't you start the derailment with this post in response to my comment about Coburn?

turbo:
"Coburn's plan ignores the fact that many people in demanding jobs can't possibly wait until 70 to retire. If he has a way to ameliorate that, I'd be glad to hear it.

I had to get out of paper-making by age 36. I ruined the joints in my feet, ankles, knees, etc pounding concrete trying to keep that beast humming. I managed to pull off another decade or so consulting for other paper companies, though even that was brutal at times.

There are many brutal jobs that people can't possibly be expected to do until age 70 unless you hope they die in their traces. It's all well and good for a desk-dweller to pontificate on this situation, but those gas-bags shouldn't be taken seriously. They work in air-conditioned comfort, travel to work in air-conditioned cars, and get nice cafeteria lunches every day and the best health-insurance in the world. Let's not pretend that they have a clue what real workers have to go through.

Edit age due to old-timer's syndrome."

Was my link regarding fraud in the SS Disability (page 3) adequate?

 

[WhoWee]

The Republican leadership in the House was successful tonight (234 to 190) to pass their cost cutting and debt containment plan.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/07/19/house-approves-cut-cap-and-balance-plan/

"The bill imposes caps on federal spending as a percentage of GDP. It also allows for an increase in the debt ceiling by $2.4 trillion in exchange for both the Senate and House approving a balanced budget amendment. "

 

[OmCheeto]

Are the Republicans an actual viable political party?

Did anyone ever present a reason to think otherwise? If so I missed it in the distractions.

Does that mean that there never was an argument, and that I can excuse myself from this discussion? I've pneumonia, predict that I'll be working about 70 hours a week for the next two months, and can barely think.

please. let me go... I need the sleep...

 

[SixNein]

Haven't you twisted that question a bit - should that be classified a troll or a strawman?

You quoted me as saying "The requirements for Social Security Disability are quite inclusive with an increased chance of abuse of benefits. What do you disagree with as per my point?". I said there is an increased chance of abuse - not that I have evidence.

You pulled out a subset of symptoms of bipolar to try to build a case for abuse. Someone with bipolar is going to need extensive evaluation by a shrink and medical doctor before ever getting a chance of being put on disability. I'm simply wanting some kind of evidence that these experts are unable to do their job.

 

[SixNein]

The Republican leadership in the House was successful tonight (234 to 190) to pass their cost cutting and debt containment plan.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/07/19/house-approves-cut-cap-and-balance-plan/

"The bill imposes caps on federal spending as a percentage of GDP. It also allows for an increase in the debt ceiling by $2.4 trillion in exchange for both the Senate and House approving a balanced budget amendment. "

Just some political theatre. The bill to watch for is coming from the senate.

 

[ThomasT]

Regarding recent posts on the abuse of entitlements to the poor and disabled, although this does exist, I don't think it's a major problem. The big problem seems to be the legitimate inflating of costs by the healthcare industry, including insurers, practitioners, suppliers, distributors, etc., and the failure of the legislature to do something simple like, say, raising the cap on social security taxes. Also, insofar as it seems that in the future we're going to want people to retire earlier rather than later, then the talk of increasing the retirement age to 70 (for regular SS payment eligibility) would seem to a bad alternative, possibly creating more problems than it solves.

Wrt fraud, there was a rather large industry of fake distributors of medical supplies in the Miami area for a time. However, I think they pretty much cleaned this up, though I don't know.

Anyway, wrt the viability of the Republican party, of course it's viable. It's not going anywhere. It's the more conservative, libertarian oriented half of what might be viewed as the Republican-Democrat megaparty.

 

[mege]

Just some political theatre. The bill to watch for is coming from the senate.

The Senate can start a bill to raise taxes? I guess the Democrats are campaigning on ignoring every facet of the constitution and President Clinton is encourage President Obama to be a dictator, so it could work.

The bill that the House voted on (Cut, Cap, etc) is a political smokescreen for sure, just as the President is 'putting entitlements on the table' (other than the President mentioning this in speeches, there's never been any enumeration) to try and make any debt-celing issues seem like they're all on the GOP. Also notice how noone's talking about the McConnell plan in the media which would grant the President the ability to step the debt celing up while essentially allowing all congress to have deniability because they could do symbolic votes?

This whole debt celing issue has been political theatre. All of them know that fundamental reform is needed in many aspects of the government's operation to truly solve any issues, but it's not politically worthy to do so. So, there'll be some political comprimise which will shove the issue off another few years so we can deal with it then - not really solving anything now. I don't think it's necessary to have a plan to eliminate our federal debt, but paying double-digit percent of the yearly budget on interest seems too much.

So to answer the OP question, again, in the context of the debt-celing/budget issues - the GOP may be losing viability because they want to make hard choices rather than charge our future away. They're making idealogical stands because doing what's popular, they believe, isn't what is right. While I understand what ParticleGrl is saying about now being a good time to borrow to improve infrastructure - that's not happening (from what I understand) in this situation. SS/Medicare are over half of the government's budget and Medicare is only going to be getting larger as more ACA planks fall into place. We're taking on 'bad debt' because borrowing the money now isn't allowing us to save anything in the future, it's just emergency patchwork. I just don't have trust that any additional debt that the government takes on to fund another stimulus is going to have any significant impact because of the inefficiencies already present - it's just passing the buck to the next administration/congress/generation (take your pick).

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-04-13/sweden-sees-surplus-plans-tax-cuts-as-economy-beats-europe.html in prudence for the down economy. I looked and couldn't find a comparative chart of European spending by country over the last 10 years, but the article linked indicates that most countrys have reduced spending (and taxes) over the last few years.

Lastly, on a purely philosophical side of the political parties in the US - I can never totally grasp the consistency of the 'redistribution of wealth' argument that the collectivists/leftists in our country make. Using the redistribution of wealth mentality, isn't it a better thing for the US to have an extremely strong military since we are one of the wealthiest countrys in the world (so it's our job to protect the less wealthy)? How does the redistributive measures work on a global scales - aside from a little bit of food/medical help that gets thrown around by the government, how are we helping other disadvantaged countries? Personally, I think the leftists are unwilling to give from their own pockets (ie: USFG) in the name of social justice - it's too easy to demand it from others in a local perspective.

 

[mege]

Regarding recent posts on the abuse of entitlements to the poor and disabled, although this does exist, I don't think it's a major problem. The big problem seems to be the legitimate inflating of costs by the healthcare industry, including insurers, practitioners, suppliers, distributors, etc., and the failure of the legislature to do something simple like, say, raising the cap on social security taxes. Also, insofar as it seems that in the future we're going to want people to retire earlier rather than later, then the talk of increasing the retirement age to 70 (for regular SS payment eligibility) would seem to a bad alternative, possibly creating more problems than it solves.

Wrt fraud, there was a rather large industry of fake distributors of medical supplies in the Miami area for a time. However, I think they pretty much cleaned this up, though I don't know.

Anyway, wrt the viability of the Republican party, of course it's viable. It's not going anywhere. It's the more conservative, libertarian oriented half of what might be viewed as the Republican-Democrat megaparty.

What worries me about Medicare, in particular, is that there are businesses that can make money off of someone's medicare payments and provide more/better service. If the system is such that a middle-man can make money off of the government service - something is wrong.

I said in another thread that I have a tendency to blame medicare/aid for the current health care situation because of their fixed rates. Unless they're right on the market price, they're going to skew the entire system (as we're seeing) forcing individuals and other insurance companies to pay more.

 

[WhoWee]

You pulled out a subset of symptoms of bipolar to try to build a case for abuse. Someone with bipolar is going to need extensive evaluation by a shrink and medical doctor before ever getting a chance of being put on disability. I'm simply wanting some kind of evidence that these experts are unable to do their job.

my bold
Changing the discussion again? Now you want to discuss the qualifications of the Government workers - or perhaps their motivations?
I Googled SS Disability Bi-polar and returned multiple pages of how to apply for benefits - looks a bit like a new cottage industry? Included in the results was a little gem that happpens to be on point.
http://dailycaller.com/2011/05/21/i-used-to-be-drunk-but-now-i’m-bipolar/

"“I used to be a drunk, but now I’m bipolar.” A guy who was applying for Social Security disability benefits once said these words, which sum up the problem with this entitlement program. Thursday’s Wall Street Journal article about a “just say yes” Social Security administrative law judge (ALJ) in West Virginia who granted benefits to 100% of the people on his case docket during this fiscal year highlights one problem with the program, but its roots are deeper. "

In response to your current question - same link:

"Currently, the only real brakes on a poorly performing judge are the threat of an audit by the inspector general or a reassignment to a hinterlands post with few amenities and lousy airline service. To make disciplining even more difficult, Social Security’s ALJs are unionized — represented by the AFL-CIO for “protection” even though ALJs are civil servants with six-figure incomes and excellent benefits."

I did not know that federal judges were unionized.

 

[mheslep]

I think the fraud mentioned in that link is due to things like charging for services that are never delivered, etc. In other words, it's perpetrated by providers.

Yes, agreed.

The kind of SS fraud WhoWee and I were discussing is "front door" fraud, i.e. bogus claims by individuals who are capable of working but try to scam the system. My (albeit limited) experience with SS is, it's harder to get a bogus claim approved than people think.

Perhaps so, but then in the case of Medicare pretty much only the providers get paid, so to that extent only they can defraud the system.

 

[WhoWee]

Yes, agreed.

Perhaps so, but then in the case of Medicare pretty much on the providers get paid, so to that extent only they can defraud the system.

It's quite possible for Medicare/Medicaid beneficiaries to commit fraud. One method is to re-sell prescriptions for pain meds, another is to re-sell medical equipment - like power chairs, another is to share benefits with 3rd parties. If the beneficiary works with a dishonest provider the fraud could be substantial.

 

[mheslep]

It's quite possible for Medicare/Medicaid beneficiaries to commit fraud. One method is to re-sell prescriptions for pain meds, another is to re-sell medical equipment - like power chairs, another is to share benefits with 3rd parties. If the beneficiary works with a dishonest provider the fraud could be substantial.

Yes, edited above: 'on-> only'

 

[SixNein]

my bold
Changing the discussion again? Now you want to discuss the qualifications of the Government workers - or perhaps their motivations?
I Googled SS Disability Bi-polar and returned multiple pages of how to apply for benefits - looks a bit like a new cottage industry? Included in the results was a little gem that happpens to be on point.
http://dailycaller.com/2011/05/21/i-used-to-be-drunk-but-now-i’m-bipolar/

"“I used to be a drunk, but now I’m bipolar.” A guy who was applying for Social Security disability benefits once said these words, which sum up the problem with this entitlement program. Thursday’s Wall Street Journal article about a “just say yes” Social Security administrative law judge (ALJ) in West Virginia who granted benefits to 100% of the people on his case docket during this fiscal year highlights one problem with the program, but its roots are deeper. "

A guy "once said these words." This is your evidence?

The WSJ article that your link is referencing did not mention bipolar; instead, it talked about a judge who was approving a high rate of disability claims from a specific lawyer. What was being claimed was not mentioned.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704816604576333682478147922.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

And No I'm not changing the discussion at all. You made the claim that some symptoms could also be claimed by drunks and therefore leads to increase chance for abuse, so show something on medical experts on how they are unable to make a proper diagnosis of someone with bipolar extreme enough to warrant disability.

 

[WhoWee]

A guy "once said these words." This is your evidence?

The WSJ article that your link is referencing did not mention bipolar; instead, it talked about a judge who was approving a high rate of disability claims from a specific lawyer. What was being claimed was not mentioned.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704816604576333682478147922.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

And No I'm not changing the discussion at all. You made the claim that some symptoms could also be claimed by drunks and therefore leads to increase chance for abuse, so show something on medical experts on how they are unable to make a proper diagnosis of someone with bipolar extreme enough to warrant disability.

Now you want to change the discussion again - this time to medical experts? Are you a troll?

The link I posted is an exact match to the possibility of fraud you challenged - it is directly on point. The Government link I posted on the subject in response to turbo discusses the (Government reported) problem of fraud and the legal remedies available. Where is the confusion?

 

[Alfi]

Now you want to change the discussion again - this time to medical experts? Are you a troll?

The link I posted is an exact match to the possibility of fraud you challenged - it is directly on point. The Government link I posted on the subject in response to turbo discusses the (Government reported) problem of fraud and the legal remedies available. Where is the confusion?

The topic is : Re: Republicans no longer a viable party?
- medical fraud is not exactly on topic. Where is the confusion?


Is it safe to say that the Republicans are not viable as a party as far as the next presidential election?
There is no challenge to Obama winning a second term, as I see things so far.

 

[WhoWee]

The topic is : Re: Republicans no longer a viable party?
- medical fraud is not exactly on topic. Where is the confusion?


Is it safe to say that the Republicans are not viable as a party as far as the next presidential election?
There is no challenge to Obama winning a second term, as I see things so far.

I would prefer to not respond to the off-topic questions. The challenge to Obama is a Republican Party united around this spending debate and a willingness to put specifics on the table. Agree with them or not, McConnell and Coburn are showing leadership and the House Republicans have moved legislation forward for a balanced budget amendment - more leadership.

 

[WhoWee]

I would prefer to not respond to the off-topic questions. The challenge to Obama is a Republican Party united around this spending debate and a willingness to put specifics on the table. Agree with them or not, McConnell and Coburn are showing leadership and the House Republicans have moved legislation forward for a balanced budget amendment - more leadership.

As a follow up point - the White House Press Secretary says the President is showing leadership by not proposing a plan?

 

[turbo]

Is it safe to say that the Republicans are not viable as a party as far as the next presidential election?
There is no challenge to Obama winning a second term, as I see things so far.

The GOP is making it their prime objective to paint Obama as a failure and deny him a second term. They seem quite unified in this goal. The problem for Congressional Republicans is that they have strong internal divisions, and whoever votes to "raise taxes" by rolling back give-aways made in past years will find their seats in jeopardy. Grover Norquist and his minions will recruit Tea-Party candidates to try to knock them out in their primaries. Thanks to Citizens United, they probably can do it, simply by swamping the air-waves with negative ads targeting the incumbents.

Is the Republican party viable? IMO, not in its current configuration. After they tear themselves apart (and they are headed in that direction) and convince Independents that they cannot govern effectively, due to all their intransigence, the Democrats will probably take back the House and make gains in the Senate. David Brooks is no idiot, and he sees the handwriting on the wall.

 

[WhoWee]

To be fair - President Obama does plan to raise taxes after the 2012 election - not now while the economy is strugggling - to pay for his spending.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45fHcmMjmPc&feature=related

By contrast, the Republican leadership is trying to slow the spending so the taxes don't have to be increased in the out years beginning 2013 - doing something now (Republican plan) seems more like leadership to me.

 

[turbo]

To be fair - President Obama does plan to raise taxes after the 2012 election - not now while the economy is strugggling - to pay for his spending.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45fHcmMjmPc&feature=related

Again, Congress passes spending bills, not the President. If all current spending is Obama's please show how that is true. If the Dems manage to roll back the Bush tax cuts and give-aways to special interests, that is is not a bad thing. Tax-cuts for the wealthy and special deductions for special interests are spending in the purest sense of the word. Want to cut spending? Cut tax-breaks for the wealthy, cut subsidies for ethanol, energy companies, agri-giants, and other entities with strong lobbies. All of that is spending, and it pulls taxes from the middle-class and shoves the money up to the rich.