4 ms·

First off, I am tired of people using the 'just Google it' argument. That is not a replacement for citations when someone asks you to see data and I insist that

First off, I am tired of people using the 'just Google it' argument. That is not a replacement for citations when someone asks you to see data and I insist that you and anyone using that argument stop. Google tailors searches based on the user, location etc and without actual citations it is incredibly difficult to assess the credibility of one's argument. If you had the time to Google your own claim, then you had the opportunity to actually cite them in your response. And second, 1-2% is such a low amount according to your claims that I absolutely do not believe it warrents invading someone's privacy and harassing them, full stop.

stickfigure 8y ago
I thought the general level of workers comp fraud was well understood, and it doesn't take much googling to find it. It sounds like the point of controversy is not sourcing, but the 1-2% figure. That 1-2% figure is the level of fraud given the current amount of privacy invasion and harassment, including the story as posted. Less harassment, more fraud; more harassment, less fraud. "full stop" If you think 1-2% is insignificant, I don't know what to say. By comparison, 0.037% of card-present transactions were fraudulent in 2012. That number was alarming enough it inspired switching all of our (USA) infrastructure to a chip-based system, and even that is generally not thought adequate. 1-2% is a large amount of fraud. If you have that amount of fraud on your merchant account, banks will generally shut you down.