REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Racial Abuse in Football

POSTED BY: MAGONSDAUGHTER
UPDATED: Sunday, June 9, 2013 18:15
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 3580
PAGE 1 of 2

Sunday, May 26, 2013 2:06 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


That's Aussie rules football, folks. Quick close this thread if you are only interested in bagging Obama.

A 13-year-old girl who was ejected from the MCG for racially abusing Adam Goodes had no idea "ape" was a racist slur when she yelled it at the Sydney Swans star during their demolition of Collingwood, according to Eddie McGuire.

The Collingwood president said he had spoken to the teenage girl, from country Victoria, who did not know it was the AFL's Indigenous Round and had no idea her comments would cause such offence when she yelled at Goodes from her seat on the sideline during Friday night's game.

Goodes, a two-time Brownlow Medallist and one of the sport's most decorated indigenous players, stopped play to point out the Collingwood fan to security staff following the offensive comment, and she was later escorted from the ground by security staff.
Spoke to teen: Eddie McGuire.

Goodes, who played a starring role in Sydney's 15.12.102 - 8.7.55 defeat of Collingwood, said the girl's offensive remarks had shocked him.
Advertisement

"I'm pretty gutted to be honest," he said.

"To come to the boundary line and hear a 13-year-old girl call me an 'ape', and it's not the first time on a footy field that I've been referred to as a 'monkey' or an 'ape', it was shattering."
Adam Goodes points the finger after being called an 'ape' by a young Collingwood supporter during the AFL's Indigenous Round.

Adam Goodes points the finger after being called an 'ape' by a young Collingwood supporter during the AFL's Indigenous Round. Photo: Andrew White

But McGuire told ABC radio on Monday that he had spoken to the girl, who "didn't even know that it was racist".

"I think, you know, she might have lit a fuse that she didn't even understand was involved," McGuire said.

"She didn't even know it was the Indigenous Round. She was a 13-year-old girl from ... country Victoria, she had no idea what she was doing, what she was saying, or anything else."

It has since emerged that Goodes and teammate Lewis Jetta were the target of more abuse during Friday night's game.

Footage aired on television on Sunday showed a man wearing a Collingwood jersey screaming at indigenous players: "Give it to Goodes because he is black. Give it to Jetta because he is black. It's indigenous round umpire."

McGuire went into the Sydney Swans' change rooms on Friday night to personally apologise to Goodes, whom he said handled the situation admirably.

Goodes did not want the girl to become a scapegoat, McGuire said.

"When he told me what happened I said, 'Look, we unconditionally apologise to you. This is something that shouldn't have happened to you. You should have left the ground as the conquering hero in indigenous week'," McGuire said.

"I was shattered for him in that situation, that he left the ground with his head down rather than his arms up.

"I thought Adam showed tremendous leadership in that situation to not only put his own issues aside but also to head more to the issue rather than just the headline."

McGuire said more work clearly needed to be done to address the problem of racism, not only in sport but in Australian society.

He blamed politicians for sending mixed messages on such issues as asylum seekers.

"Politicians set the tone for the type of country that we will get and the voters go along with it. We all have to decide whether we're going to be a red neck, hick country, or we are going to be a country that is very much involved in tolerance," he said.

But at the same time McGuire said attitudes had come a long way from 20 years ago, when he was told it was acceptable to hurl racist abuse at indigenous players.

Fans should be able to go to the football without "bile coming out of your mouth" every time an opposition player gets the ball, he said.

"We live in a very lucky country, but we get revved up by either the media, politicians, our own situation...," he said.

"Hey, go to the footy and enjoy yourself, barrack for your team, teach your kids about the ups and downs of life ... that's what it's all about."

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/afl/afl-news/goodes-abuse-teen-didnt-know-ape-wa
s-racist-says-mcguire-20130527-2n64f.html#ixzz2URjnKjuc

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 26, 2013 3:21 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


""Politicians set the tone for the type of country that we will get and the voters go along with it. We all have to decide whether we're going to be a red neck, hick country, or we are going to be a country that is very much involved in tolerance," he said."

I don't see the politicians as the cause, I see them as the effect.

The initial condition is the influx of 'the other', which causes people who see their environment as a zero-sum environment, and who feel that their relatively advantaged position might be undermined, to feel threatened. And so they initiate aggression, even if it's 'just' social aggression.

Politicians are like for-profit-media - the vast majority don't have the wit to see something larger, to aim for something better, or to create that vision in others. And they don't have the money to ignore the bottom line. So they often (though not always) aim for the lowest common denominator and pitch to intolerance. And, bottom line, that gets them votes.


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 26, 2013 4:59 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
""Politicians set the tone for the type of country that we will get and the voters go along with it. We all have to decide whether we're going to be a red neck, hick country, or we are going to be a country that is very much involved in tolerance," he said."

I don't see the politicians as the cause, I see them as the effect.

The initial condition is the influx of 'the other', which causes people who see their environment as a zero-sum environment, and who feel that their relatively advantaged position might be undermined, to feel threatened. And so they initiate aggression, even if it's 'just' social aggression.

Politicians are like for-profit-media - the vast majority don't have the wit to see something larger, to aim for something better, or to create that vision in others. And they don't have the money to ignore the bottom line. So they often (though not always) aim for the lowest common denominator and pitch to intolerance. And, bottom line, that gets them votes.



McGUire refers particularly to the asylum seeker issue, which has been an agenda set by politicans in this country.

It has been used as an 'us and them' issue, very successfully in the early naughties to be the (Liberal)conservative government re elected.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 26, 2013 6:21 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


Slightly scrambley? Perhaps a revisit to rephrase ... thanks!

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 26, 2013 6:57 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Ha ha. Made no sense whatsoever upon reading back.

In the early 2000's the then Howard Government used the issue of asylum seekers, particularly those who arrived by boats as an election hot issue and there is no doubt that his tough stance helped get him re elected. It has remained a very devisive issue in this country, which has a background of being rather xenophobic towards immigrants from non european background. The public sentiment has always had a rather odd 'hands off, we were here first' mentality. Odd given that Europeans weren't here first, not by a long shot.

I am supposing that the statement refers to this playing into a xenophobic mind set and kind of growing issues that really need not be grown. Why boat people should remain such a point of hysteria given that they are still relatively few and most turn out to have genuine asylum claims anyway.

So if government are going to use those issues to score electoral points then they need to take some responsibility with having many segments of the population quite comfortable with expressing either overt racism 'you ape' or covert racism 'these people are queue jumpers'.

Hope that sounds more coherent. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 26, 2013 9:03 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


AH! Now I get it.

It's a small taste of what's going on here, I think. At first it appears to be a chicken and egg question (do the candidates foment the racism, or do the already-racist people select racist platforms?), but at least here the answer looks like the people are driving that bus.

I may have mentioned elsewhere that I'm really, really white - almost glow-in-the-dark white. And though I look a lot younger than I am, I still look like some clueless, ignorant housewife. So here in So Cal where racism takes a back seat to business, and people don't come out and openly make racist comments unless they're in known company, I get sotto voce comments thrown my way that I take to be people fishing for a kindred racist spirit. (I also get a lot of "god will bless you"s as well, but that's not directly part of this story, it just indicates that I look like a type.) So I'm not under any illusion that there isn't a certain part of the population that deeply identifies as white and all that it means in terms of their assumed place in the universe.

These people I think are deeply disturbed by the fact of a (half-)black president. They may dress it up by criticizing his citizenship or lack of it, his patriotism or lack of it, his commie-loving economics, and so on and so forth - but honestly I think it comes down to Obama being (half-)black.

Then someone voices the sentiment. And people feel validated and come out of the closet with what they've been thinking all along.

So this subterranean stream of racism I can attest to has been there all along. What's happened since the politicians have come on board with the drivel about all the pointless items that are a stand-in for calling him nigger, is that that already existing racism is now more vocal, and people have hardened it through repetition and external and internal reinforcement.


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 26, 2013 10:11 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


I find the current political discourse from both our countries rather pointless, and worse still it demonstrates a nastiness at the underbelly of our respective cultures.

The fact seems to be that no one can disagree with others POV without getting nasty and insulting. The very fact that disagreement exits is enough to dehumanise the other. Surely that's counter productive to a healthy society which should be encouraging diversity of views.

I think we similar issues given that our PM is a woman, and has had to bear the brunt of sexual and violent taunts from those who oppose her. It seems to have gotten better recently, having been named, but its been pretty ugly.

Anyway, the ironic thing about this whole racism issue is that it took place in the Indigenous Round which is a celebration of Indigenous player contribution to the game.

Have to post this for many reasons ;)



In a match for St Kilda against Collingwood in round four of the 1993 season, Winmar was racially abused by members of the Collingwood cheersquad, who yelled for him to "go and sniff some petrol" and "go walkabout where you came from".[12] At the conclusion of the game, which St Kilda won by 22 points, Winmar lifted up his jumper and, facing to the crowd, pointed to his skin. The following day, a photograph (pictured right) of Winmar's gesture, taken by Wayne Ludbey, was published in the Sunday Herald Sun under the headline "Winmar: I'm black and proud of it", with the Sunday Age publishing a similar photograph under the caption "I've got guts".[3] Winmar's gesture, described as a "powerful statement", an "anti-racist symbol",[36] and one of the "most poignant" images in Australian sport, has been credited as a catalyst for the movement against racism in Australian football,[1] and compared to the black power salute performed by American athletes at the 1968 Summer Olympics in terms of impact.[37]

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, May 27, 2013 9:55 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Quote:
At first it appears to be a chicken and egg question (do the candidates foment the racism, or do the already-racist people select racist platforms?), but at least here the answer looks like the people are driving that bus.
Quote:
These people I think are deeply disturbed by the fact of a (half-)black president. They may dress it up by criticizing his citizenship or lack of it, his patriotism or lack of it, his commie-loving economics, and so on and so forth - but honestly I think it comes down to Obama being (half-)black.

Then someone voices the sentiment. And people feel validated and come out of the closet with what they've been thinking all along.

So this subterranean stream of racism I can attest to has been there all along. What's happened since the politicians have come on board with the drivel about all the pointless items that are a stand-in for calling him nigger, is that that already existing racism is now more vocal, and people have hardened it through repetition and external and internal reinforcement.

That's been my belief for a long time now. Those with racist tendencies may be driving the bus, but the politicians hop on board like crazy to get elected, obviously, and once elected they further the mentality, which further emboldens the "bus drivers". All of that is bad enough, but the politicians they elect end up with POWER to write laws and other things which further the racism, and the chicken-and-egg problem becomes so very much uglier...

And yes, definitely "it demonstrates a nastiness at the underbelly of our respective cultures"--amen. An undebelly I was naive to think we were coming to terms with in this country...until Obama was elected.

Interestingly, none of the "she didn't know" stuff appeared in many articles in this country. For example, http://www.mediaite.com/tv/pro-athlete-points-out-racist-13-year-old-s
pectator-has-her-thrown-out-of-stadium/ I find it hard to believe she didn't know what she was yelling, I'm sorry. The sadness/irony of it having been the Indigenous Round just multiplies the wrongness of it all.

Both our countries have a problem; I fear yours will make better headway against it sooner than ours will, by far, however.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, May 27, 2013 10:59 AM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


" I find it hard to believe she didn't know what she was yelling, I'm sorry."

Well, ahem, as a teen I used to casually call people schmucks - by which I meant odious jerks - not knowing that it meant 'male sex organ' - the equivalent to calling them 'dicks' or 'pricks'. So, having been there, done that, yes, it's possible to call someone a derogatory term without knowing EXACTLY what it implies.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, May 27, 2013 11:13 AM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


"The fact seems to be that no one can disagree with others POV without getting nasty and insulting."

I have no problems politely, rationally, and thoughtfully disagreeing with people who can be polite, rational and thoughtful - and on-topic. I'm not reacting to their arguments, or to their different POVs, I'm reacting to THEM personally, and their YEARS long histories of failing to read posts, failing to cite or even acknowledge facts, and to their deceit, snark, and inability to formulate a post that is polite, rational and thoughtful - and on-topic.

Being non-American perhaps you will be received with a level of circumspection the rest of us have never enjoyed.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, May 27, 2013 11:18 AM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Yeah, I feel your frustration. I was referring to more mainstream politcal discourse, which you would have hoped would be a tad more intelligent and polite.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 28, 2013 2:49 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Actually, Kiki, if you were here for it, just recently she was received with LESS "civility" (best word I can come up with) because she's not in the states. I forget who, but one of our less civil folk first thought she was an immigrant to this county, and snarked at her about that, then snarked at her about the great and wonderful US. Can't remember the subject or who it was, but it was somewhat amusing...

Well, Magons, I can conceive that she might not have known precisely HOW egregious calling him an ape was, but I still remember teen years, too, and I find it hard to accept she was totally innocent. JMHO.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 28, 2013 11:32 AM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Can't remember either.

I remember DT used to try and insist I was a Brit, in his strange passive aggressive way, I think he was trying to goad me.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 28, 2013 12:27 PM

BYTEMITE


Australian Rules Football is simultaneously the most amazing and terrifying sport I've ever seen.

It's like you guys asked yourselves, "Our players have too many intact teeth, jaws, and kneecaps. How can we make rugby more violent?"

Hmm, racism. Apparently using immigration policy as a wedge issue for elections can exacerbate it.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 28, 2013 12:45 PM

MAL4PREZ


Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Well, Magons, I can conceive that she might not have known precisely HOW egregious calling him an ape was, but I still remember teen years, too, and I find it hard to accept she was totally innocent. JMHO.


When I was a kid, like 7-8 years old, we used to knock on doors and run away, hide in the bushes and giggle. (Yes, kids are nasty little buggers.) This practice was called by a name that I didn't understand until a light went on sometime in my 20s. I still blush to think of it.

As a kid, I thought the term was related to some kiddie song with lyrics "knick-knack pollywhack" or something of the sort. "Knicker-knocking" was what I called this knock-and-run prank.

What the hell kind of grownups let us talk like that? *facepalm*

I could have easily been beat up for using such a term, cause only a stupid kid could not know what that came from. Thank goodness the black kids in the neighborhood either never heard me, cut me some slack when they did, or were just as ignorant as I was.

"Ape" is a little harder to be ignorant about. But young people just do not think about the meaning of what comes out of their mouths. I judge this girl by how she reacted, and I think she did the right thing. I don't think she understood how bad it was until she was forced to face it. Big kudos to the player for calling her out.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 28, 2013 1:25 PM

BYTEMITE


I have never heard of this term and I was considered a champion doorbell ditcher in my time. :o

Salt Lake City is insular. We do have some racism though.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 28, 2013 4:10 PM

MAL4PREZ


Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
I have never heard of this term and I was considered a champion doorbell ditcher in my time. :o

Salt Lake City is insular. We do have some racism though.


Doorbell ditcher. Much better term!

I grew up in the Midwest, luckily in a little pocket of sanity that wasn't as homogenous as the rest. Sadly, a bit of the badness trickled in. I think I've managed to escape.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 28, 2013 4:25 PM

BYTEMITE


I actually don't know how to interact very well with other races due to growing up in Salt Lake City, which is unfortunate. And I've had some serious idiot moments. I've been guilty of positive discrimination against Asian Americans, and also had a problem where I have mistaken two similar last names of Chinese descent at my work. And then this other time, on Chinese New Year, I was talking excitedly about how Chinese New Year is the best excuse for Chinese dinner to one of my coworkers also of Asian descent, and I realized belatedly how awkward it is that I'm saying that to her, like that's the only thing I could talk to her about. So yeah - total moron.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 28, 2013 9:48 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


I have an awkward moment or two. So awkward I can't even type it here. Aarrrggggg.

Never heard of 'knicker knocking', but gollywogs were still favoured toys in my childwood, as was the picking game 'eenie, meenie, miney, mo' which had an unfortunate second line, which has been changed to 'catch a rabbit by the toe, if he hollers let him go' in more recent enlightened times.

Also we used the term 'jewish' to describe anyone stingy. Hard to believe now.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 29, 2013 2:32 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Well, I had a mixed upbringing. I WAS one of the "outcasts" (not because of skin color, because of height, skinniness, thick glasses and double braces) and got called lots of names by the "in" kids, and others. At the same time, my mother never thought twice about racist terms and used them regularly--I don't remember far enough back to when I didn't understand what they meant, I only remember cringing when younger, getting pissed and saying something angry to her when older, and eventually just accepting that she didn't "get it"--she lived to 91, died in my bedroom, and at a certain point, you realize it's a waste of your energy.

The worst she ever did, which I'll never forget, was say of O.J.'s wife "Well, she should have known what she was getting into, marrying a..." She rarely actually used the "n" word, thankfully... Given the times she grew up in (early 1900s), I tried to just accept it was the way she was.

Maybe living in Afghanistan had something to do with it, or the fact that I grew up around all races, out here especially Hispanic and Asian, and never understood racism. I obviously missed something along the way. I know I DO have prejudices, and maybe my biggest is people speaking Spanish "around me" (like sales people talking to one another), but the rest? I just don't get it.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 29, 2013 3:10 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
The initial condition is the influx of 'the other', which causes people who see their environment as a zero-sum environment, and who feel that their relatively advantaged position might be undermined, to feel threatened. And so they initiate aggression, even if it's 'just' social aggression.


You mean like this?

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
But I see the same thing happening with Geezer. He used to TRY to be somewhat slick with with his various rhetorical manipulations: strawmen, ad hominem, shifting definitions etc ... now he's just a mean and clumsy rabid ideologue.

Little rappy went over the edge a long, looooong time ago, but he's upped the volume. And he and jongsie really need to get a room.


Yep. Thanks for the example.


"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 29, 2013 3:44 AM

MAL4PREZ


Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
You mean like this?


As if I need more proof that you don't understand what racial bias really is.

The aggression toward you is because the way you act and the dumb shit you post. (Reference the above.) It is not because you are part of some group of "Others."

For you it's easy. Start not being a tool, and you won't be treated like one. For non-white people in many areas, they don't have that freedom. Assumptions are made about them no matter how they act.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 29, 2013 3:49 AM

MAL4PREZ


Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
I've been guilty of positive discrimination against Asian Americans...


Here's my positive Asian bias that I'm actually somewhat fond of, just for how weird it is. I learned to play ice hockey at school with lots of Asian students, some of whom played hockey and were damned good. So now if I ever see an Asian on the ice, I have this automatic reaction: watch out he/she's gonna skate right around me and kick my ass LOL!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 29, 2013 4:19 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:
Originally posted by MAL4PREZ:
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
You mean like this?


As if I need more proof that you don't understand what racial bias really is.


Bias is bias, be it racial, political, gender-based or whatever.

Quote:
The aggression toward you is because the way you act and the dumb shit you post. (Reference the above.) It is not because you are part of some group of "Others."

For you it's easy. Start not being a tool, and you won't be treated like one. For non-white people in many areas, they don't have that freedom. Assumptions are made about them no matter how they act.


So Kiki calls me names and insults me because I don't agree with her, you call me names and insult me because I don't agree with you, and I'm the one who's supposed to stop being a tool?

I'm thinking you might ought to look in the mirror if you want to see the tool.




"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 29, 2013 5:08 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


"So Kiki calls me names and insults me because I don't agree with her ..."

No, I call you names and insult you b/c of what you bring (and mostly EPICALLY fail to bring) to the board - like this -

http://fireflyfans.net/mreply.aspx?mid=938631

arguments with no logic (in fact I believe you have yet to explain how one of your arguments was relevant, despite being asked to twice)

Kiki
And how does this related to Obamacare, again? Spell it out, in concrete detail, step by step, from beginning all the way to the end.

Slick
It's not all that difficult to figure out, based on what I posted above. Since you can't, or won't, not much point in explaining to you.

Kiki
Then it should be easy for you to make your own argument. But since you can't, all I can conclude is that you have none.

Slick
It's amazing how much you apparently don't know.



Ad hominems

Slick
It's amazing how much you apparently don't know.

If you're not interested enough to keep informed, not much point in continuing.


'facts' with no references, cites or quotes

Slick
Or you might spell out in concrete detail how the ACA is gonna prevent the fraud, waste, and abuse that's already pretty much endemic in the Medicare/Medicaid systems, when there's gonna be a lot more government money floating around to be grabbed.

Anyone who follows the news should have seen many stories about Medicare and Medicaid fraud, so I have to assume that you don't.


etc etc etc

Really old fart, why should I bother doing anything else other than make fun of you? Have you been able to bring insight to ANY discussion? New relevant facts? Logic? Anything beside your old-man religion where we just have to trust HALLELUJAH! that your talking points will amount to something by-and-by?

Besides, it amuses me to see you get your dander up. You may not be good for anything else, but at least you make a handy - and amusing! - target!


ENJOY YOUR NEXT FOUR YEARS!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA - HERE'S LAUGHING AT YOU OLD FART!

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 30, 2013 12:37 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Slick


Haven't seen that in a while.

So are you SignyM's sock puppet, or Rue with a new name?


"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 30, 2013 12:43 PM

MAL4PREZ


Yep, Kiki covered it, not that I expect slick to get it.

And so the mocking shall continue!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 30, 2013 4:02 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:
Originally posted by MAL4PREZ:
Yep, Kiki covered it, not that I expect slick to get it.

And so the mocking shall continue!


So apparently both you and KIKI are proud to not know that there is quite a bit of fraud in the current Medicare and Medicaid system...

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

or that the ACA will greatly expand Medicaid...

http://www.medicaid.gov/AffordableCareAct/Affordable-Care-Act.html

And unless you think that more money available in the Medicaid coffers will be less of a temptation to folks who will commit fraud, you'd have to agree that there'll probably be more when the ACA is implemented.

Or you can just ignore it and insult some more.


"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 30, 2013 5:22 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


total medicare/ medicaid costs 2010

$949 billion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_%28United_States%29

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



total medicare/ medicaid fraud 2010

$65 Billion (6.8%)

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-5414390.html

http://www.healthaffairs.org/healthpolicybriefs/brief.php?brief_id=72



total Net US Government Bailout Outlays (after repayments) plus guarantees

$20,200 Billion (3607%) - but who's counting?

http://www.usfederalbailout.com/


Laughability of watching Geezer strain at gnats while swallowing camels

priceless


ENJOY YOUR NEXT FOUR YEARS!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA - HERE'S LAUGHING AT OLD FART!

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 31, 2013 2:25 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
total medicare/ medicaid costs 2010

$949 billion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_%28United_States%29

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



total medicare/ medicaid fraud 2010

$65 Billion (6.8%)

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-5414390.html

http://www.healthaffairs.org/healthpolicybriefs/brief.php?brief_id=72



total Net US Government Bailout Outlays (after repayments) plus guarantees

$20,200 Billion (3607%) - but who's counting?

http://www.usfederalbailout.com/


Wow. Talk about going for a non sequitur, or comparing apples to oranges. Not to mention that the $16.9 trillion in bailout guarantees are not outlays, or that the bailout expenses cover several years.

And you still provide no evidence that increased money in the Medicare/Medicaid system won't lead to increased amounts claimed fraudulently.


"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 2, 2013 1:10 AM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


"It's not all that difficult to figure out, based on what I posted above. Since you can't, or won't, not much point in explaining to you."



ENJOY YOUR NEXT FOUR YEARS!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA - HERE'S LAUGHING AT YOU OLD FART!

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 2, 2013 2:07 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"It's not all that difficult to figure out, based on what I posted above. Since you can't, or won't, not much point in explaining to you."


Oh, the Medicare/Mediciad payments vs. Medicare/Medicaid fraud figures? That's easy to figure out. If estimated fraud is around 7% of current payments, I'd expect it to be about the same percent of the higher Medicare/Medicaid payments that will be made under the ACA. Therefore, the amount of fraudulent payments will increase.

Thanks for proving my point.


"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 2, 2013 3:00 AM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


"If estimated fraud is around 7% of current payments ..."

Well see, this is where your failure to read comes into play - AGAIN.

The somewhat under 7% figure (6.8% specifically) was fraud and waste COMBINED. There were no separate figures for fraud. So fraud per se in under 6.8%.

And this <6.8% figure is what you call "QUITE A BIT of fraud in the current Medicare and Medicaid system.."

... which you then blame on "folks" being tempted, though a quick google search indicates that nearly all the fraud is carried out at the business level - by the doctor, group practice, treatment/ outpatient surgery center, diagnostic center, imaging center, pharmacy, medical supply center, and hospital. This is information easily available to you by googling Medicare fraud and Medicaid fraud, which you could have looked up on your own to se if your own case was true - but didn't.

The other way to look at is is in comparison to other government "fraud" - government literally giving money away for nothing in return - not even a good or service being paid for on behalf of the citizens. Like the bailouts. The government spent in total outlays $4,600 billions dollars. After repayments it's *still* $3,300 billions of dollars in the hole. Five years later 72% of the money the government gave to the banks has yet to be repaid - and banks made record profits last year. On top of that the government essentially co-signed loans to the banks to the tune of $16,900 billion. It's not out of pocket YET but it's liable to be at any time.

But even if we were to compare ONLY out of pocket losses, the government is out less than $65 billion to Medicare and Medicaid fraud. Compared to that, it took a $3,300 billion beating with the bailouts.

Aren't you outraged at that large number? Or do you shrug it off on your way to carping about what is comparatively petty?

The third way to look at Medicare/ Medicaid waste and fraud is to compare it to private insurance. Now THAT'S a fun comparison!

In addition to the 6.8% fraud and waste combined, Medicare and Medicaid have about a 1.3% overhead. http://www.cms.gov/NationalHealthExpendData/downloads/tables.pdf That brings the total 'medical loss ratio' MLR to about 8%.

What about private insurance? Those numbers are hard to come by. But one of the few good things about Obamacare is that it requires a minimum of 85% of the premiums cover actual patient care. In other words it sets a maximum MLR of 15%.

That's almost double the badness of Medicare and Medicaid. You should be outraged - OUTRAGED! - that private companies are so non-competitive, and wasteful and for all we know - fraudulent. Yet I see no outrage from you that they're twice as bad as that big, wasteful, do nothing government.


So yeah you silly old man, your lack of brain power, your extreme bias, and your basic dishonesty are showing. Again. As well as your inability to read.




NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 2, 2013 5:47 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"If estimated fraud is around 7% of current payments ..."

Well see, this is where your failure to read comes into play - AGAIN.

The somewhat under 7% figure (6.8% specifically) was fraud and waste COMBINED. There were no separate figures for fraud. So fraud per se in under 6.8%.


Per the cites you posted...
From CBS News

"In fact, Medicare fraud - estimated now to total about $60 billion a year - has become one of, if not the most profitable, crimes in America."

From Healthaffairs.org

"The true annual cost of fraud and abuse in health care is not known. In fiscal year 2011 Medicare spent $565 billion on behalf of its 48.7 million beneficiaries, while federal and state Medicaid agencies served 70 million people at a combined cost of $428 billion. CMS estimated that in fiscal year 2010 these two programs made more than $65 billion in "improper federal payments," defined as payments that should not have been made or were made in an incorrect amount. Adding in improper payments made by state Medicaid programs boosts the total by about $10 billion annually."

So neither mentions "fraud and waste COMBINED", or even "waste" at all. So who has a "failure to read"?


Quote:
And this <6.8% figure is what you call "QUITE A BIT of fraud in the current Medicare and Medicaid system.."


So since both your cites don't mention "waste" it's actually the 6.8% figure, which is close enough to 7% that I can safely use "around 7%", since the amount listed are based on estimates anyway.

And I don't know about you, but I figure $60 to $65 billion a year is a LOT of money lost to fraud. This is not to mention the additional $10 billion that Healthaffairs.org says is lost from fraud on state Medicaid programs.


Quote:
... which you then blame on "folks" being tempted, though a quick google search indicates that nearly all the fraud is carried out at the business level - by the doctor, group practice, treatment/ outpatient surgery center, diagnostic center, imaging center, pharmacy, medical supply center, and hospital. This is information easily available to you by googling Medicare fraud and Medicaid fraud, which you could have looked up on your own to se if your own case was true - but didn't.


"...the doctor, group practice, treatment/ outpatient surgery center, diagnostic center, imaging center, pharmacy, medical supply center, and hospital." aren't "folks"? It wasn't "folks" within these organizations that decided to defraud Medicare/Medicaid? Are you saying it was their computer systems? Or what else - if not the "folks" who work at or run those businesses?

Quote:
The other way to look at is is in comparison to other government "fraud" - government literally giving money away for nothing in return - not even a good or service being paid for on behalf of the citizens. Like the bailouts. The government spent in total outlays $4,600 billions dollars. After repayments it's *still* $3,300 billions of dollars in the hole. Five years later 72% of the money the government gave to the banks has yet to be repaid - and banks made record profits last year. On top of that the government essentially co-signed loans to the banks to the tune of $16,900 billion. It's not out of pocket YET but it's liable to be at any time.


So where are your figures on how much of the bailout money went to fraud? If you want to compare fraud to fraud, (which, BTW, still has nothing to do with my statement that increased Medicare/Medicaid funding from ACA will result in increased amounts of money fraudulently paid.) you need to prove there were fraudulent bailout payments.

Quote:
But even if we were to compare ONLY out of pocket losses, the government is out less than $65 billion to Medicare and Medicaid fraud. Compared to that, it took a $3,300 billion beating with the bailouts.

Aren't you outraged at that large number? Or do you shrug it off on your way to carping about what is comparatively petty?


I may be upset, but that's not the question. Can you show that increases in Medicare/Medicaid payments due to ACA will not result in an increase in the amount of money paid to meet fraudulent claims? I proposed that it will, and you've shown no proof to the contrary.

Quote:
The third way to look at Medicare/ Medicaid waste and fraud is to compare it to private insurance. Now THAT'S a fun comparison!

In addition to the 6.8% fraud and waste combined, Medicare and Medicaid have about a 1.3% overhead. http://www.cms.gov/NationalHealthExpendData/downloads/tables.pdf That brings the total 'medical loss ratio' MLR to about 8%.

What about private insurance? Those numbers are hard to come by. But one of the few good things about Obamacare is that it requires a minimum of 85% of the premiums cover actual patient care. In other words it sets a maximum MLR of 15%.

That's almost double the badness of Medicare and Medicaid. You should be outraged - OUTRAGED! - that private companies are so non-competitive, and wasteful and for all we know - fraudulent. Yet I see no outrage from you that they're twice as bad as that big, wasteful, do nothing government.


So yeah you silly old man, your lack of brain power, your extreme bias, and your basic dishonesty are showing. Again. As well as your inability to read.


But you're still not debating what I claimed.

Show some evidence that increased Medicare/Medicaid expenditures due to the ACA will not result in increased amounts of money lost to fraud (and abuse).

If you can't, admit it and stop dragging red herrings through the thread.


"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 2, 2013 7:27 AM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


ONE

"The National Healthcare Anti-fraud Association (NHCAA) cites an average of 3 percent (at the low end) and 10 percent (at the high end) of healthcare spending is lost due to fraud. That’s between $67 Billion and $230 Billion lost each year to FRAUD, ***WASTE*** OR ABUSE."

Those all fall under the rubric of IMPROPER PAYMENTS and are counted together. Furthermore, if you look further as to how it's defined, and therefore calculated, it counts an ENTIRE payment to be an improper payment if a portion of that payment is in question or if it's an underpayment, or there is some other non-fraudulent irregularity:

Q. What is an improper payment?

A. “Improper payments” occur when either:

* federal funds go to the wrong recipient,

* the recipient receives the incorrect amount of funds (either an underpayment or overpayment),

* documentation is not available to support a payment, or

* the recipient uses federal funds in an improper manner.


http://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.universalamerican.com/pdfs/UAM-
2010_2011_FWAProviderTraining.pdf&sa=U&ei=xXmrUdbxH4f8iwLfyoHgCQ&ved=0CCQQFjAA&usg=AFQjCNH4oSr05OPbeIYe04PLAZ0rqaE-6g

http://www.paymentaccuracy.gov/content/faq#1

It's called knowing your terms.

TWO

"So since both your cites don't mention "waste" ..."

See above.

THREE

It wasn't "folks" within these organizations that decided to defraud Medicare/Medicaid?

It was folks - and especially groups of business folks - who got together to make this a business practice.


FOUR

"So where are your figures on how much of the bailout money went to fraud? "

So you're not concerned about government losing taxpayer money by whatever term?

FIVE

"Can you show that increases in Medicare/Medicaid payments due to ACA will not result in an increase in the amount of money paid to meet fraudulent claims? I proposed that it will ..."

Actually you claimed more than that. You claimed it was QUITE A LOT of FRAUD.

What is 'quite a lot'? What is your yardstick? Is it a yardstick you apply across the board; say to bailout losses or private insurance waste; fraud, profit, salaries benefits, perks; or one you only specifically apply to this instance? Does it matter how it's lost before you become concerned with how big the number is? And is it a percentage or an actual number?

And how reliable is your 'fraud' definition? Because the way it's defined - and therefore calculated - and the way you use it, your category is NOT reliable at all (see above).

And you haven't answered either of those.



NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 2, 2013 9:52 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
ONE

"The National Healthcare Anti-fraud Association (NHCAA) cites an average of 3 percent (at the low end) and 10 percent (at the high end) of healthcare spending is lost due to fraud. That’s between $67 Billion and $230 Billion lost each year to FRAUD, ***WASTE*** OR ABUSE."



Wow. Since your two original cites didn't mention "waste", you looked on the internet until you found one that did.

However, you don't provide any figures as to how much of the $67 billion to $230 FREAKING BILLION lost each year (per your latest source) falls in each category. So that's another fail.

Even if you do provide a breakdown, it's still money that is going out of the system that's not providing actual healthcare, so whether it's fraud, abuse, or waste, it's still lost money. I still posit that since there's going to be more money in the system under the ACA, there will be more lost.


Quote:
Those all fall under the rubric of IMPROPER PAYMENTS...


Now you're just cheating. You're using the definitions from one source to try and define the results from another. Nowhere does Universal American claim to have used "improper payments" as defined by paymentaccuracy.gov as a basis for their estimate.

Quote:
color=#0000ff>TWO

"So since both your cites don't mention "waste" ..."

See above.


So where above does it show that your two original cites, CBS and Healthaffaris.org, mentioned "waste"? And unless you can show that a pretty large percentage of the up to FREAKING $230 BILLION lost to fraud, waste, and abuse was WASTE, you still got no point.

Quote:
THREE

It wasn't "folks" within these organizations that decided to defraud Medicare/Medicaid?

It was folks - and especially groups of business folks - who got together to make this a business practice.


So when I said it was "folks", I was right.


Quote:
FOUR

"So where are your figures on how much of the bailout money went to fraud? "

So you're not concerned about government losing taxpayer money by whatever term?


As noted, "I may be upset, but that's not the question". I'm discussing fraud and abuse in the Medicare/Medicaid system. Should I quote the Washington Post about AG Holder in such a discussion? Should I mention the war in Syria? No. Since it's not germaine to the issue I brought up.

Quote:
FIVE

"Can you show that increases in Medicare/Medicaid payments due to ACA will not result in an increase in the amount of money paid to meet fraudulent claims? I proposed that it will ..."

Actually you claimed more than that. You claimed it was QUITE A LOT of FRAUD. What is 'quite a lot'? What is your yardstick?


You just provided a figure of up to $230 BILLION lost per year. That's almost a quarter of a trillion dollars in ONE YEAR. Based on the $949 Billion in Medicare/Medicaid expenditures in 2010 you cited above, that's over 24% of all money spent.

I'd say losing almost a quarter of your funds to fraud, waste, and abuse is QUITE A LOT INDEED.

Quote:

Is it a yardstick you apply across the board; say to bailout losses or private insurance waste; fraud, profit, salaries benefits, perks; or one you only specifically apply to this instance?


Haven't seen any figures for FWA (fraud, waste, and abuse) for bailouts.

Conflating fraud with salaries is dishonest of you. They are different things altogether.

Quote:
Does it matter how it's lost before you become concerned with how big the number is?


Apparently it does to you, since you seem to consider up to 230 BILLION FREAKING DOLLARS chump change in your rather specious comparison to the bailout (Which you've repeatedly failed to show contains any fraud at all).


Quote:
And is it a percentage or an actual number?


I used both above. Up to $230,000,000,000.00 a year (Damn. That's a lot of zeroes), or more than 24%.

Quote:
And how reliable is your 'fraud' definition? Because the way it's defined - and therefore calculated - and the way you use it, your category is NOT reliable at all (see above).


I'm using what YOU consider reliable sources - sources that you originally cited - to come up with amount of fraud (CBS), fraud and abuse (Healthaffairs.org, or FWA (Universal American).


So you still have no evidence that money lost to fraud will not increase when there's more money at stake due to the expansion of Medicare/Medicaid under the ACA.

All you've done in this post is provide me with an even higher figure for the money lost each year.


"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 2, 2013 10:35 AM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


Hmm ... have I mentioned before that there are NO figures for fraud specifically? Well, yes come to think of it, right here: "There were no separate figures for fraud. So fraud per se in under 6.8%."

Now why did I mention that earlier? Because I looked it up. ALL contractors who monitor Medicare and Medicaid ONLY monitor for 'improper payments' as per this report http://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d10844t.pdf&a
mp;sa=U&ei=i6arUaXoH43aigL6p4G4Cg&ved=0CD4QFjAI&usg=AFQjCNESk3eEWSXF1L7y-MDDxkWg0uMyRg Even the GAO notes it when it comes to Medicare http://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.gao.gov/assets/130/125646.pdf&a
mp;sa=U&ei=cayrUc2NCsLtiwLpyYHgBA&ved=0CBgQFjAA&usg=AFQjCNGFRjkdO8vZnzylCwpchAVqaGNQlQ And that since there are NO figures for fraud specifically, singling out one subcategory out of 'improper payments' and then calling the entire 'improper payments' category fraud is - well, fraud. That's why I specifically said it was LESS THAN the 6.8% total figure. How much less?? Anyone’s guess, but less. So to hang your argument on a figure which is bogus is rather silly - don't you think?

I think most people would agree.

And any 'numbers' argument you make based on a bad number is also faulty.

So, the contractors that monitor Medicare 'improper payments' don't monitor for fraud and provide no fraud figures. The GAO also notes that reality. A website WITH AN AX TO GRIND either fails to read, misreads, or misrepresents a report which in its very second line mentions 'waste' and considers ALL 'improper payments' to be fraud (even underpayments apparently). And you are really flogging that dead horse very, very hard.

BTW - my initial post was short and meant to be funny. You can continue to ignore all the other links I've since posted that provide the context and substantiation for my argument. But at that point you look pretty silly and this discussion becomes moot.




NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 3, 2013 4:16 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Hmm ... have I mentioned before that there are NO figures for fraud specifically? Well, yes come to think of it, right here: "There were no separate figures for fraud. So fraud per se in under 6.8%."

Now why did I mention that earlier? Because I looked it up. ALL contractors who monitor Medicare and Medicaid ONLY monitor for 'improper payments' as per this report http://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d10844t.pdf&a
mp;sa=U&ei=i6arUaXoH43aigL6p4G4Cg&ved=0CD4QFjAI&usg=AFQjCNESk3eEWSXF1L7y-MDDxkWg0uMyRg Even the GAO notes it when it comes to Medicare http://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.gao.gov/assets/130/125646.pdf&a
mp;sa=U&ei=cayrUc2NCsLtiwLpyYHgBA&ved=0CBgQFjAA&usg=AFQjCNGFRjkdO8vZnzylCwpchAVqaGNQlQ And that since there are NO figures for fraud specifically, singling out one subcategory out of 'improper payments' and then calling the entire 'improper payments' category fraud is - well, fraud. That's why I specifically said it was LESS THAN the 6.8% total figure. How much less?? Anyone’s guess, but less. So to hang your argument on a figure which is bogus is rather silly - don't you think?

I think most people would agree.

And any 'numbers' argument you make based on a bad number is also faulty.

So, the contractors that monitor Medicare 'improper payments' don't monitor for fraud and provide no fraud figures. The GAO also notes that reality. A website WITH AN AX TO GRIND either fails to read, misreads, or misrepresents a report which in its very second line mentions 'waste' and considers ALL 'improper payments' to be fraud (even underpayments apparently). And you are really flogging that dead horse very, very hard.


Unfortunately for you, none of the three estimates YOU provided of Medicare/Medicaid losses due to fraud, waste, or abuse were made by the "contractors that monitor Medicare 'improper payments'". So how contractors identify improper payment is sort'a moot.

So we're left with estimated losses (that YOU provided, BTW) of between $60 billion and $230 billion depending on whether you ask CBS, Healthaffairs.org or Universal American. Losses - be it from fraud, abuse, or waste - are losses; money that can't be used to provide health care.

Let me ask you. If you found that someone had stolen between 6.8% and 24% of the money in your checking account, would you consider it A LOT of money to lose?


"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 5, 2013 6:52 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


"estimated losses"

Nope. Improper payments. Improper payments are:

* federal funds go to the wrong recipient,

* the recipient receives the incorrect amount of funds (either an underpayment or overpayment),

* documentation is not available to support a payment, or

* the recipient uses federal funds in an improper manner

Please note: improper payments include overpayments, payments where the paperwork got lost, UNDERPAYMENTS and other miscellaneous irregularities and ERRORS.

Oh yes, I see you failed to support your post. And I see you failed to read and/ or understand my links. Now I realize you're an old fart, and you need better glasses and your mind is kinda' shot, but if you take it one word at a time you might get through it.



ENJOY YOUR NEXT FOUR YEARS!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA - HERE'S LAUGHING AT OLD FART!

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 6, 2013 10:00 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"estimated losses"

Nope.



Yep.

Per two of the sources YOU cited for losses above.

"In fact, Medicare fraud - estimated now to total about $60 billion a year - has become one of, if not the most profitable, crimes in America."

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-5414390.html

CBS does not provide a source for their estimate of losses, which YOU cited.



"The National Healthcare Anti-fraud Association (NHCAA) cites an average of 3 percent (at the low end) and 10 percent (at the high end) of healthcare spending is lost due to fraud. That’s between $67 Billion and $230 Billion lost each year to fraud, waste, or abuse. That estimates to between $184 million and $630 million dollar loss per day, and this number is expected to increase every year as healthcare costs rise."

http://www.universalamerican.com/pdfs/UAM-2010_2011_FWAProviderTrainin
g.pdf

Now the Universal American figure comes from the National Healthcare Anti-fraud Association. Nowhere in either the Universal American pdf or on the NHCCA site do I find how they made the estimate of losses YOU provided.

So not only do we have two of YOUR sources calling the figures YOU cited 'estimates', one of YOUR sources says that the amount of waste, fraud, and abuse "...IS EXPECTED TO INCREASE EVERY YEAR AS HEALTHCARE COSTS RISE."

Sounds familiar.

Quote:
Improper payments. Improper payments are:

* federal funds go to the wrong recipient,

* the recipient receives the incorrect amount of funds (either an underpayment or overpayment),

* documentation is not available to support a payment, or

* the recipient uses federal funds in an improper manner

Please note: improper payments include overpayments, payments where the paperwork got lost, UNDERPAYMENTS and other miscellaneous irregularities and ERRORS.


You do have one reference to "improper payments", here.

" The true annual cost of fraud and abuse in health care is not known. In fiscal year 2011 Medicare spent $565 billion on behalf of its 48.7 million beneficiaries, while federal and state Medicaid agencies served 70 million people at a combined cost of $428 billion. CMS estimated that in fiscal year 2010 these two programs made more than $65 billion in "improper federal payments," defined as payments that should not have been made or were made in an incorrect amount. Adding in improper payments made by state Medicaid programs boosts the total by about $10 billion annually."
http://www.healthaffairs.org/healthpolicybriefs/brief.php?brief_id=72

But even this article addresses "improper payments" in the context of "fraud and abuse"

Also, you've shown nothing about how the "improper Federal payments" are broken down by category. For all we know, 99% of them are fraud and abuse.

The other two sources YOU cited didn't split hairs about the estimated $60 billion to $230 billion loss being attributible to fraud, waste, and abuse.

Quote:
Oh yes, I see you failed to support your post. And I see you failed to read and/ or understand my links. Now I realize you're an old fart, and you need better glasses and your mind is kinda' shot, but if you take it one word at a time you might get through it.


All I have done is take the data and cites YOU provide and support my point. One of YOUR sources even agrees with me completely that as Medicare/Medicaid expenditures go up, the amount of fraud, waste, and abuse will go up.

Cite figures that show the "improper payments" you go on about so much aren't mainly fraud, waste, and abuse, or prove that the CBS and Universal American estimates of losses of $60 billion to $230 FREAKIN' BILLION aren't correct.

Even better yet, show any evidence that losses to fraud, waste, and abuse will go DOWN as money in the Medicare/Medicaid system increases. After all, Since I say losses will go UP, that's what you really need to prove.


"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, June 7, 2013 6:03 AM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


first link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_%28United_States%29#Fraud_and_wa
ste
"Fraud and waste[edit]

Main article: Medicare fraud

The Government Accountability Office lists Medicare as a "high-risk" government program in need of reform, in part because of its vulnerability to fraud and partly because of its long-term financial problems.[88][89][90] Fewer than 5% of Medicare claims are audited.[91]"

following the link within the link

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

The total amount of Medicare fraud is difficult to track, because not all fraud is detected and not all suspicious claims turn out to be fraudulent. According to the Office of Management and Budget, Medicare "improper payments" were $47.9 billion in 2010, but some of these payments later turned out to be valid.[1] The Congressional Budget Office estimates that total Medicare spending was $528 billion in 2010.[2]

third link

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-5414390.html

there is enough waste and fraud in the system to pay for health care reform if it was eliminated.

fourth link

... in fiscal year 2010 these two programs made more than $65 billion in "improper federal payments," defined as payments that should not have been made or were made in an incorrect amount.

The law also allowed federal budget dollars to be dedicated to address fraud, waste, and abuse.

The recovery audit contractors, however, are not specifically focused on fraud, but instead seek to identify improper Medicare payments generally.

ninth link


http://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.universalamerican.com/pdfs/UAM-
2010_2011_FWAProviderTraining.pdf&sa=U&ei=xXmrUdbxH4f8iwLfyoHgCQ&ved=0CCQQFjAA&usg=AFQjCNH4oSr05OPbeIYe04PLAZ0rqaE-6g

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) requires Medicare Plans to have a comprehensive plan to detect, prevent, and correct fraud, waste, and abuse (FWA) in the Medicare program. An element of the plan includes fraud, waste, and abuse training and education.

That’s between $67 Billion and $230 Billion lost each year to fraud, waste or abuse.

Defining Fraud, Waste and Abuse ...
Under-utilization: Physicians not providing enough care or delaying needed care.

tenth link

Under the Executive Order 13520 Reducing Improper Payments, agencies with high-error programs are required to establish semi-annual or more frequent measurements for reducing improper payments. The supplemental measures are intended to provide information on high-risk areas and report on root causes of errors that agencies can resolve through corrective actions.

This website also provides a centralized place where the public can report suspected incidents of fraud, waste, and abuse.

How does someone report suspected incidents of waste, fraud, and abuse related to improper payments?

eleventh link

http://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d10844t.pdf&a
mp;a
mp;sa=U&ei=i6arUaXoH43aigL6p4G4Cg&ved=0CD4QFjAI&usg=AFQjCNESk3eEWSXF1L7y-MDDxkWg0uMyRg

MEDICARE FRAUD, WASTE, AND ABUSE

Challenges and Strategies for Preventing Improper Payments

I am pleased to be here today to discuss our work regarding fraud, waste,
and abuse in the Medicare program. 1 We have designated Medicare as a
high-risk program since 1990, in part because we found the program’s size
and complexity make it vulnerable to fraud, waste, and abuse. 2 Fraud
represents intentional acts of deception with knowledge that the action or
representation could result in an inappropriate gain, while abuse
represents actions inconsistent with acceptable business or medical
practices. Waste, which includes inaccurate payments for services, such as
unintentional duplicate payments, also occurs in the Medicare program.
Fraud, waste, and abuse all can lead to improper payments, overpayments
and underpayments that should not have been made or that were made in
an incorrect amount. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
(CMS) 3 —the agency that administers Medicare—has estimated improper
payments for Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) at $24.1 billion in calendar
year 2009. 4

twelfth link

http://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.gao.gov/assets/130/125646.pdf&a
mp;a
mp;sa=U&ei=cayrUc2NCsLtiwLpyYHgBA&ved=0CBgQFjAA&usg=AFQjCNGFRjkdO8vZnzylCwpchAVqaGNQlQ

MEDICARE AND MEDICAID FRAUD, WASTE, AND ABUSE

Accountability • Integrity • Reliability

Effective Implementation of Recent Laws and Agency Actions Could Help Reduce Improper Payments

Now, these aren't ALL the quotes form ALL the links, but an indication of all that you failed to read.




ENJOY YOUR NEXT FOUR YEARS!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA - HERE'S LAUGHING AT YOU OLD FART!

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, June 7, 2013 9:03 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Not sure of your point here.

Your cite from GAO, "...lists Medicare as a "high-risk" government program in need of reform, in part because of its vulnerability to fraud and partly because of its long-term financial problems."

One of your cites concludes that fraud, waste, and abuse, "...IS EXPECTED TO INCREASE EVERY YEAR AS HEALTHCARE COSTS RISE."

The estimates of 2010 losses to fraud, waste, and abuse in your cites range up to $230 Billion.

You have failed to cite any source that would indicate that losses from medicare/medicaid fraud, waste, and abuse will decrease, or even increase more slowly as medicare/medicaid payments rise.

So instead of putting up page after page of links to large documents, state your position and prove it.

So far, all you've done is cite stuff that proves mine.


"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, June 7, 2013 10:24 AM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


Ahem

I realize you're old and senile, but - to refresh your memory - your point by which you opened this whole discussion was this:

"So apparently both you and KIKI are proud to not know that there is quite a bit of fraud in the current Medicare and Medicaid system..."


You have failed to show how MUCH of the total "improper payments" are specifically fraud, despite having attached the label 'fraud' to descriptors (quite a bit) and various numbers.

You made the claim, and have failed to back it up.

ENJOY YOUR NEXT FOUR YEARS!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA - HERE'S LAUGHING AT OLD FART!

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, June 8, 2013 2:16 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Ahem

I realize you're old and senile, but - to refresh your memory - your point by which you opened this whole discussion was this:

"So apparently both you and KIKI are proud to not know that there is quite a bit of fraud in the current Medicare and Medicaid system..."


You have failed to show how MUCH of the total "improper payments" are specifically fraud, despite having attached the label 'fraud' to descriptors (quite a bit) and various numbers.

You made the claim, and have failed to back it up.


How failed?

I've shown, through YOUR cites, that estimates of fraud, waste, and abuse - which are all losses to the system - range up to $230 billion dollars. Most of YOUR cites don't describe their figures as based on "improper payments", they're described as fraud, or fraud and abuse, or fraud and waste and abuse.

I also noted that based on the $60 billion to $230 billion loss figure that YOU cited and the $949 Billion payments figure that YOU cited, around 6% to over 24% of payments went to fraud, waste, and abuse. I still figure thats quite a bit.

As I asked you earlier, If you found that someone had stolen between 6.8% and 24% of the money in your checking account, would you consider it A LOT of money to lose?

BTW, you brought the "improper payments" definition up, so it should be your responsibility to back up your assumptions with facts.

And you still haven't shown any evidence that losses to waste, fraud, and abuse will not increase when payments increase.


"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, June 8, 2013 5:17 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


"So apparently both you and KIKI are proud to not know that there is quite a bit of fraud in the current Medicare and Medicaid system..."


You lost your argument when you gave it up and decided you didn't REALLY mean mean FRAUD per se, you meant to include a whole bunch of OTHER stuff as well.

Even if you do provide a breakdown, it's still money that is going out of the system that's not providing actual healthcare, so whether it's fraud, abuse, or waste, it's still lost money.



ENJOY YOUR NEXT FOUR YEARS!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA - HERE'S LAUGHING AT YOU OLD FART!

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, June 8, 2013 5:40 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"So apparently both you and KIKI are proud to not know that there is quite a bit of fraud in the current Medicare and Medicaid system..."


You lost your argument when you gave it up and decided you didn't REALLY mean mean FRAUD per se, you meant to include a whole bunch of OTHER stuff as well.

Even if you do provide a breakdown, it's still money that is going out of the system that's not providing actual healthcare, so whether it's fraud, abuse, or waste, it's still lost money.



So if it's money lost, but it's not lost specifically to fraud, there's some difference? It still is money that's not there to pay the bills for folks who need health care. It's still money gone from the federal coffers that did nothing useful.

Whoopee. You've decided it may not have been all 'fraud', so even though it's money lost, and even though your cites consider it money lost, and you can't say that a substantial portion of the money lost to "fraud, waste, and abuse" wasn't lost to the fraud part, you're claiming victory because possibly the up to $230 billion lost in 2010 wasn't 100% fraud?

I have to say that you certainly have a peculiar sense of logic.




"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, June 8, 2013 6:46 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


You failed to prove your point. It was a stupid point, b/c it wasn't supported by facts. Nevertheless you picked it, and posted it. And then you abandoned it when I challenged it with facts. Now want to pretend like you didn't make that point, and shift the argument to some other point you didn't make.

But that's OK. You look silly doing it. So I'll keep posting just enough to keep you coming back.

ENJOY YOUR NEXT FOUR YEARS!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA - HERE'S LAUGHING AT YOU OLD FART!

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 9, 2013 5:26 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
You failed to prove your point. It was a stupid point, b/c it wasn't supported by facts. Nevertheless you picked it, and posted it. And then you abandoned it when I challenged it with facts. Now want to pretend like you didn't make that point, and shift the argument to some other point you didn't make.

But that's OK. You look silly doing it. So I'll keep posting just enough to keep you coming back.



Hmm. CBS estimated $65 billion lost to fraud in 2010 (and they only said fraud, not including waste, abuse, "improper payments")

That's the first cite on the amount lost to fraud that you supplied.

Strangely, you don't seem to think that $65 billion is a lot of money. You don't think that losing 6.8% (your figure again) to fraud alone is bad. You don't think that when you include losses to waste and abuse, and the figure goes up to $230 billion (over 24% of total payments), that that's a lot either.

And again, you've shown nothing to disprove that losses to fraud (or waste, or abuse) will go up when payments go up under ACA.

Since that's my argument, why don't you try and disprove it, instead of trying to show that losses not titled fraud aren't valid losses.

I figure you're throwing out all these red herrings about bailouts, private insurance overhead, "improper payments", and quibbles about fraud losses are different from fraud, waste, and abuse losses because you can find no indication that losses won't go up.

I expect that you figure you'll keep saying "But two plus two IS five", until I get tired of your lunacy and quit responding, and then declare victory.

Ain't gonna happen.

I can keep asking you to disprove my claim that fraud losses will go up as payments go up under ACA pretty much forever.

BTW: I'll be traveling this coming week, so I might miss a day or two, but any declaration of victory on your part would be premature. You're wrong, and you know you're wrong, but you just won't admit it.


"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 9, 2013 4:04 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


This was your argument:

... there is quite a bit of fraud in the current Medicare and Medicaid system ... the ACA will greatly expand Medicaid ... more money available in the Medicaid coffers will be temptation to folks who will commit fraud ... there'll probably be more when the ACA is implemented.

You failed to define 'quite a bit' by percentage of money spent, absolute dollar amount, fraction of GDP, or any any measure. When challenged to define 'quite a bit' you sailed past tens of trillions of government funds lost on bank bailouts, but stuck on a few billions of potential fraud.

You failed to show indisputable figures for fraud, since different sources ascribe different categories to the same dollar amounts.

You failed to show that Medicaid will operate in substantially the same way it has in the past, leading to your predicted result.

You failed to correctly designate the vast percentage of fraud to 'businesses' instead of 'folks'. Unless of course you want to go the Mitt Romney route and claim corporations are people, er, businesses are folks, an argument which doesn't hold water.

You simply haven't made any of your case. Which is why I like to laugh at you.

ENJOY YOUR NEXT FOUR YEARS!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA - HERE'S LAUGHING AT OLD FART!

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 9, 2013 4:24 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
This was your argument:

... there is quite a bit of fraud in the current Medicare and Medicaid system ... the ACA will greatly expand Medicaid ... more money available in the Medicaid coffers will be temptation to folks who will commit fraud ... there'll probably be more when the ACA is implemented.

You failed to define 'quite a bit' by percentage of money spent, absolute dollar amount, fraction of GDP, or any any measure. When challenged to define 'quite a bit' you sailed past tens of trillions of government funds lost on bank bailouts, but stuck on a few billions of potential fraud.


You provided the dollar amounts. On your first pass it was $60-65 billion, and later up to $230 billion. If you don't think that $60 to $230 bilion is "quite a bit" of money, you're a fool.

Quote:
You failed to show indisputable figures for fraud, since different sources ascribe different categories to the same dollar amounts.


I used the figures you provided. Your figures ranged up to $230 billion.

Quote:
You failed to show that Medicaid will operate in substantially the same way it has in the past, leading to your predicted result.


You failed to show that it would operate differently. Since the way it's currently operating is the standard, it's up to you to prove it would be different, and more importantly more efficient, under ACA.

Quote:
You failed to correctly designate the vast percentage of fraud to 'businesses' instead of 'folks'. Unless of course you want to go the Mitt Romney route and claim corporations are people, er, businesses are folks, an argument which doesn't hold water.


Businesses aren't composed of folks? Is it computers doing the fraud? And what does it matter anyway, since the amount of loss is the same whether it's folks, computers, or little green men from Mars.

Quote:
You simply haven't made any of your case. Which is why I like to laugh at you.


I don't have to make my case. Your cites make it for me.

For example...

The National Healthcare Anti-fraud Association (NHCAA) cites an average of 3 percent (at the low end) and 10 percent (at the high end) of healthcare spending is lost due to fraud. That’s between $67 Billion and $230 Billion lost each year to fraud, waste, or abuse. That estimates to between $184 million and $630 million dollar loss per day, and this number is expected to increase every year as healthcare costs rise."

http://www.universalamerican.com/pdfs/UAM-2010_2011_FWAProviderTrainin
g.pdf

So your own cite says that losses will increase as healthcare costs rise.Sounds sort'a like "...more money available in the Medicaid coffers will be temptation to folks who will commit fraud ... there'll probably be more when the ACA is implemented."

Please quit. You're so embarrassing it's not even funny any more.




"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
White Woman Gets Murdered, Race Baiters Most Affected
Thu, November 28, 2024 07:40 - 20 posts
Alex Jones makes himself look an even bigger Dickhead than Piers Morgan on live TV (and that takes some doing, I can tell you).
Thu, November 28, 2024 07:29 - 81 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, November 28, 2024 07:11 - 7514 posts
Hollywood exposes themselves as the phony whores they are
Thu, November 28, 2024 07:02 - 46 posts
Elections; 2024
Thu, November 28, 2024 06:03 - 4846 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, November 28, 2024 05:58 - 4776 posts
Trump, convicted of 34 felonies
Thu, November 28, 2024 03:56 - 44 posts
Thread of Trump Appointments / Other Changes of Scenery...
Thu, November 28, 2024 03:51 - 48 posts
Where Will The American Exodus Go?
Thu, November 28, 2024 03:25 - 1 posts
What's wrong with conspiracy theories
Wed, November 27, 2024 17:06 - 21 posts
Ellen Page is a Dude Now
Wed, November 27, 2024 17:05 - 238 posts
Bald F*ck MAGICALLY "Fixes" Del Rio Migrant Invasion... By Releasing All Of Them Into The U.S.
Wed, November 27, 2024 17:03 - 41 posts
 VIEW MORE TOPICS 

FFF.NET SOCIAL