Anyone see the 60 minute spot on fraud?
 

I heard this afternoon that 60 minutes aired a spot Sunday evening about how fraudulent ridden the SSDI system has become in recent years.

I did not see the program.

I can only go by my own personal experience and can not understand the position taken by 60 minutes as it was relayed to me. Did the reporters investigate the process? Did they bother to find out how stringent the rules and regulations? Did they only depict the system based upon ONE bad apple attorney that was in collusion with an ALJ and a medical doctor?

I understand Binder and Binder was also mentioned very negatively.

They also left the impression that disability attorneys are paid by the government, not "issued" by the governement. The implication was the attorney is paid "out of government general taxpayer dollars" rather than "issued" by the government out of the benefits due the applicant. The implication was it is FREE to the approved applicant.

What has happened to reporters? Why not tell the "whole" story?

I am sure there may be some fraudulent receipients, but there are probably far more deserving applicants that never get approved.

Maybe they should have presented the rigors that one must endure in the process instead of a "sensational" story that makes anyone on SSDI look like they are taking advantage of the system.

They refer to SSDI as the "secret" welfare program.

I hope this is not a "taboo" post. It is not meant to be anything other than illustrating BAD reporting by so called "journalists".

To the moderators: Please remove this post if inappropriate. Thank you.

TV shows like 60 Minutes have a limited time allowed per segment.
The 60 minutes website has the segment for view.


The topic is fine as long as it doesn't get into partisan political bashing.

journalism is dead in america. there is no investigative journalism anymore. everything is agenda driven.
i didnt see the show but they should have shown the other side of the coin, alj's who turn down 99% of those who come before them.

You need to see the show.

Hi Kitt,

I went online to see it.

I really think they left the impression that the tab for the attorney is FREE to the applicant. They could simply have added that attorney fees are paid out of the award benefits granted to the recipient. How many extra seconds would that have taken?

While I totally agree with exposing fraud, I think the general public was left with the impression as titled, "the secret welfare". It put ALL recipients to be viewed through that contorted view.

Maybe I am disturbed because I am facing my ALJ hearing in a few weeks and fear a new bias against applicants in light of this expose. Will ALJ's be out to boost their denial rates? The one I will appear before already has the highest denial rate in my state. Will the headlines make him now deny 100%?

I agree that the time is limited but it would have only taken a matter of seconds to clarify that attorney fees are paid out of award benefits.

I believe it was Kentucky. I also found "60 minutes overtime" on my search engine. That was very interesting I thought.

Hi hopeless
 

Yes, I saw the segment on 60 minutes. Can't get political on Neuro Talk, but I can say I hope the system can be fixed. ginnie:eek:

To Mz Migraine and Kitt

I agree that it was interesting to see how the system could be scammed. Being in the middle of the process myself, knowing how many hoops I have had to jump through, the extensive documentation involved, etc. and having heard about the show before I actually saw the show, my reaction to it seems different than yours.

Maybe because I have not been approved (as of yet). Maybe I resent people on disability being portrayed as scammers, silent welfare seekers, etc. I loved my job and would give anything to be able to perform the duties I had. I am not home beseeched by pain by choice. I am not going deeper into debt every day just to survive by choice. Yes, I was offended. If you have a condition that is not "obvious" to everyone, then people doubt your disabling condition. I thought the people on this forum would be as offended as I was but maybe if you already have received approval, you looked at the clip from a different vantage point.

I just fear the expose will make it even more difficult for people that are incapable of working at a SGA level to be approved. ALJ's may feel pressured to deny even more claims.

I'm trying to watch it.....can't get it on my phone and my laptop is crappy for video. I saw a write upon it, but couldn't get the video. Does anyone have a link ?

the congressional staff that conducted this "investigation" work for Tom Coburn, a senator from Oklahoma. He is on record as pro privatizing social security and cutting medicare and ssdi. we have had posters from Oklahoma who had called his office for help with their disability case and his office refused to help anyone with ssdi. read between the lines.

To what? The video you already stated you can't view? A link to the 60 Minutes segment article?

:confused:

i would be willing to bet my house that the percentage of ssdi alj's who are corrupt is miniscule compared to the members of congress who are corrupt.

Hi Echoes
 

I believe what you said is true. Congress is like a child right now. Having a bit of a temper tantrum. Take away their pay, and force a real sit down, maybe the rest of the country won't hurt as much. The world is watching us melt down, I feel shame that our Gov. can't come together to solve our problems and different opinions. Nothing happens without conversation, so this stand still is worthless. Ginnie:(

I saw the segment when aired. I have not applied for SSDI as I'm hoping the medications can get my Lupus/Sjogren's under control so I can be back to work by January. If not, I am going to be forced to apply. Perspective of my situation may have tainted my view of the show.

I wasn't mad or offended. I was a bit disheartened by this show.
A) I did felt this airing would have an effect on approvals issued regardless if people warranted it.
B) I think it's a shame people, and Lawyers feel okay to scam they system set up for folks with a disability. The fact that a lawyer has a 100% approval rate and brings in a doctor to sign the pre-filled out paperwork in the lawyers office in mass screams dirty and low down. The fact that this lawyer has become rich by "ambulance chasing/insurance fraud accidents" sort of fraud on SSDI and taking the available budget out of the hands of people that need it is just dirty.

As for the comments about the Lawyers fees, I didn't have a problem with the way any of that was worded. It didn't even cross my mind until I read it on this thread. I watched my brother-in-law go through his disability claim when he was run over by construction equipment at work. So I knew that the lawyers took their fee out of the amount awarded. I think the show may not have made the clarification because they were highlighting the corruption of lawyers making this a greedy "big business" enterprise. The more lawyers get involved, the more of the awarded and owed disability money doesn't get to the hands that deserve it - the disabled person. They mentioned a statistic about how previously X amount of people showed up with a lawyer, and now X showed up with a lawyer, and it was a vast increase. Again, speaking to the lawyers finding a way to get their hands in a pie that really shouldn't go to them. I haven't even applied, but I feel like I would need a lawyer, that's just the impression I've gotten from the stories I've heard/read, meaning the lawyers are doing their job - making money.

Overall I thought they did a fair job showing some of the abuses/corruption of the system.
The one part I was unsatisfied with was someone (I forget who, and even the exact statement) who said people were abusing the system with disabilities such as RA, because there was no universal testing for diagnosis. I took that a bit sensitive as my diseases are invisible, and that kind of abuse will only make it harder for people who suffer from RA, or invisible illnesses. I fear additional discrimination towards RA and illnesses similar inthe SSDI if the abuses are widespread. I don't know because I don't have any experience myself, but it was just disheartening the obsticals real sufferers would have to go through because of the greed of the scammers.

Hello abbyrition
 

You do pay attention to what is going on with the lawyers and Government. I know the system needs desperately to be corrected, but it doesn't seem like anyone is on that track. ginnie:grouphug:

I rarely watch 60 minutes because of the one way slant that is normally their way. however I watched this one. My take on it was they were focusing more on one particular lawyer who was scamming the system for HIS own gain. It was in just the one state but they made it clear it was going on nation wide.

lol....Yeah, that was a lot clearer in my head when I wrote that !

I meant a link to the video.

I thought I had the right story, but could not click on anything that linked to the video. Turns out the story I found on cbs.com on my phone briefly summarized that story, but was not the story with the link.

Thanks, MM !

Hope, I agree. It seems to mislead at several points saying the government is paying these lawyers, not clarifying that the governments is paying from the awardee's back pay.

Hi Finz
 

Hope you got to see the segment on 60 min. It will take all agencies, and yes the public to put an end to fraud within the system. Do you remember when we discussed this? If everyone does Nothing, to correct the fraud, nothing good will come of it. ginnie:grouphug:

Hi Ginnie,

I agree that the fraud needs to be eliminated. The fraud makes it much more difficult for legitimate claimants to obtain approval and benefits. I just wish there was more balance when reporters cover stories of abuse in any program. The manner in which it is reported makes the general public think anyone availing themself of any assistance is a perpetrator and fraudulently obtaining benefits. Maybe just ONE line indicating that not all applicants are scammers would be beneficial.

Hi Hopeless
 

Yes, of course you are right. 60 minutes should also say that the VAST majority of folks really need the disablity and are NOT engaging in fraud in any way shape or form. The thing is, I actually know someone who did that, so it does happen. If the public, or individuals let it slide and not report it, it makes it bad on the people who do need coverage. I was kinda chewed on because I approved of this person I know that is reputable( a psychologist in the family), that reported the false claim. Heck I cheered for him!

Most people are good people, it is just a few bad apples that spoil the bunch.
It is so hard to get disability as it is. I don't want those few bad apples to hurt the rest of those individuals who are in real trouble and in need. Our country needs all the help it can get. Take care....ginnie:hug:eek:

Again, my prior objection was that your claim of fraud was based on a second hand report. You can't have it both ways and agree that many disabilities are not obvious to the naked eye and than claim someone is lazy and sits around watching tv, so they should be reported for fraud. Are there clear examples of fraud that should be reported? Yes. Some people work under the table while collecting benefits as one example.

Unless you've read a person's claim of what their disabilities are, and than seen evidence that refutes that, than you are perpetuating the same ideas about SSDI and fraud without any evidence.

Please put yourselves in the shoes of someone that has a psych claim for example--should they have to explain why they're receiving SSI or SSDI to extended family or neighbors? The information people post on this forum is not substantial enough for anyone of us to know who should actually qualify or be denied for benefits. Making those decisions is not an easy job, and as flawed as the system might be, I think it is more dangerous that an uniformed public should decide it's their job to police who should lose benefits.

Would you want to have to justify your benefits to someone that has no medical or legal background? CDR's are one way for SS to monitor us. If they need to increase them or put other steps in place to reduce fraud, I certainly wouldn't object.

Hi lit love
 

Well it is not exactly a second hand report. After knowing this psychologist for 35 years, associated with the CFS, I kinda believe him. It is in his family. He would not let this person hurt others that need this service. Like I said there are a few bad apples. I stick with what I said. xxxginnie:grouphug::hug:

Thanks Ginnie.......Yes, I was able to watch it via the link Mz M posted.

It sounds like obvious gross fraud going on in that area between that lawyer and ALJ. It's disgusting to see overt stealing from our government/the SSD Fund treated like a game. The whole country should be appalled by that.

What the general public probably won't realize is how much more difficult this will make the process for those with legitimate claims. Especially those of us with "invisible" disabilities.

Hi Finz
 

Yes, Finz, that was the point I tried to make. Those in the "tubes" waiting for their approval at some level, are being hurt by this. I see so many good people on NT, who are going through a living hell, trying to get medical help, and final approval. Some are way more hurt too, than I am, they deserve to get the help, and the process is getting ever slower.
I did do one thing myself over the last 5 years since I have had approval. I actually look at my hospital bills, and doctor bills. I did find a double billing for an endoscopy to medicare. I had it corrected. That saved the Gov. a couple of thousand dollars. I know it is just a drop in the bucket.
I keep those waiting for help, in my prayers daily. Thanks for commenting Finz. We both see these issues and try to help those right here. xginnie:hug:

Thank you Mz Migraine. That was my entire point. I expect to be subjected to the standard scrutiny to meet the requirements of eligibility as it should be but fear that all the recent publicity will create an atmosphere of denial that will not be objective. I fear a bias against current applicants and appeals beyond the standard regulations.

More negative press - equating disease with drug abusers
 

I am just astounded... I could be understanding of the 60 minutes bit for the most part. Corruption and Fraud by both Lawyers and fakers should be shut down.

That said... I saw that Judge Judy just equated people with the Auto-Immune Disease Lupus with Drug Addicts, and does not feel they should be allowed SSDI. She also said we all just need more personal responsibility. I am just outraged that a Judge (retired or not) can consider themselves a public servant in one breath and then completely undermining and discounting so many's disability due to a disease. For Shame Judge Judy, for shame.

If you haven't seen the interview - http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/the-ke...responsibility

Hi Abby
 

Lupus is a terrible disease. She didn't know what she was talking about. Very un educated. Auto immune diseases, can cause a train wreck in ones life! Ever looked at arthritis Judge Judy? Most auto immune diseases wind up being very very difficult to live with. Lets hope people higher up will have better sense. Maybe we should write a letter and inform her....ginnie:grouphug:

The Lupus Foundation did write her a letter, but before she even said it she said,"Don't write her any negative mail, because she doesn't read it."

I feel like personally writing her a letter that she won't read... But I'm more concerned about the public connotation, and the fact that She made rulings with this ignorance while on the bench.

Hi Abby
 

Any one serving the public should be held to the highest standard. That goes for local, or national. :( ginnie

Judge Judy is an entertainer who happened to have a work history of being a Superior Court Judge. Not a public servant. A TV star.

judge judy is a blow hard

shes still a blow hard. shooting her mouth off about something she knows NOTHING about

I have only known one person personally that had Lupus. She was an extremely ill young lady in her 30's. Yes, I used the correct tense, past tense as she is deceased. Her lupus affected so many vital organs, including her heart, and kidneys. She was on dialysis since she was a young girl. She was on disability when I met her but I am sure it was her ESRD, end stage renal disease, which is an automatic qualification.

Must someone with lupus have to wait until it destroys their kidneys and they are on dialysis to be approved for disability?

I am astouded that anyone with any knowledge, even very limited, could not understand how an auto-immune disease should be grounds for disability. By definition, when one's own body is attacking itself, how can that be anything but disabling?

Well, just had to put in my 2 cents. If for no other reason but in honor and memory of the sweet young lady I knew that lost her life to lupus.

Not everyone with Lupus matches SS's definition being eligible for SSI/SSDI, nor is kidney function the only deciding factor of when they'll become eligible.

Agreed.

My comment was in response to a blanket statement that lupus was not disabling and should not qualify one for disability, as a poster stated was made by Judge Judy.

The young lady of whom I wrote was an inspiration. I just wanted to honor her and her courage. She really touched my life.

"a blanket statement that lupus was not disabling and should not qualify one for disability"


Misassumptions regarding lupus (and most diseases or conditions) can happen on both at either end of the spectrum. Saying that "lupus is not disabling and should not qualify one for disability" (*not Judge Judy's exact words) is not correct. Saying, ""lupus instantly causes total disability and should result in automatic disability approval" is also not correct.

The symptoms of lupus (SLE) will cause some level of disability. Many unfortunate lupus sufferers will experience total disability at some point in the course of their disease; that may come sooner or later in the course of the condition for different people.

I'm appalled by what Judge Judy said. I think it was insensitive at best (I have my fingers crossed that maybe she will make a public apology and clarification) and incredibly bigoted and/or ignorant at worst. 'm also a little confused by it. In describing her dil, she says somedays she's exhausted, somedays she gets done what she needs to. Judge Judy never actually says that what she needs to do ( I'm paraphrasing, but here's the link if anyone needs it : http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...55123115,d.eW0 ) includes SGA. Heck, I get done what I NEED to. Unfortunately, bathing, housework, working at a job, driving the kids to school because they missed the bus......none of them are NEEDS, they are WANTS.

Then she says that sometimes it's debilitating and sometimes not. Is that supposed to mean that for some people it disabling and for some people it's not ? Or does it mean that just because her dil isn't that bad some of the time, she expects ALL people with lupus can do SGA ? Does she "get" that employers usually aren't too fond of employees who only show up 1/2 the time ?

Will she still be saying, "Meh" if her dil ends up on dialysis ?