3 ms·
Fraud should be a concern, however at some points, the attempts to eliminate it outweigh (in terms of cost and effort) the effect of its existence. At that poin
by sophacles 11y ago
Fraud should be a concern, however at some points, the attempts to eliminate it outweigh (in terms of cost and effort) the effect of its existence. At that point it becomes a morality issue rather than a practical one.
For comparison, I wonder if the CBO was given full investigatory power into private insurance, would they discover a higher or lower fraud percentage? It would not surprise me if they were higher, and that at some point they just accepted that fraudulent claims would be cheaper to ignore than to uncover, based on dollar amounts and so on. It similarly of course wouldn't surprise me if they were lower being able to deny more people at the outset, or were able to use more information to find high risk claims (that privacy concerns prevent the government from using for the exact same purpose).
- th0waway 11y agoI would expect it to be the reverse: there is no incentive for government programs to root out fraud, if they fall short, they just raise taxes. For private companies - if they are being defrauded, it directly affects their bottom line, and the bottom line of their executives (who would be VERY interested to make sure bonuses increase). If we are talking about fraud within the company/government, I would expect the same - less in the company than in the government. Not zero, but less overall.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- afarrell 11y agoThe people in charge of trying to root out fraud don't have the power to raise taxes. They aren't congresscritters. That doesn't imply that they aren't demoralized, ineffective, or hamstrung, but still.
- th0waway 11y agowow - really? Negative points for pointing out that the government has no financial incentive to root out fraud? Must be government shills.