3 ms·

How is this asinine? Regardless of the technical details, if we don't have an accurate DOB of recipient, then they shouldn't be past, present or future benefici

How is this asinine? Regardless of the technical details, if we don't have an accurate DOB of recipient, then they shouldn't be past, present or future beneficiaries unless we get an accurate DOB. Something is obviously wrong since the DOB is a critical component to the whole program. As far as I'm concerned, anybody currently receiving benefits with this issue is obviously a problem.

dkjaudyeqooe 2y ago
That's not what the law or administrative statutes say, you can prove eligibility without a birth date. You're simply ignorant on this matter.
- frugalmail 2y ago
  You're again trying to attack instead of establishing a logical explanation. It's clear you're not here in good faith. Regardless of how somebody establishes their birth date, that field would still get updated with the data that gets accepted. If that field is invalid, and somebody is receiving payments, then it's wrong.
  - Kolya 2y ago
    There are ways you could establish eligibility without a birth date. For example, they may have a WW2 service record but no record of their birth.
  - bagels 2y ago
    You act as though there can only be one database table in existence. It's telling that Musk did not publish the data on the age of people that are receiving payments.
  - mrguyorama 2y ago
    >Regardless of how somebody establishes their birth date, that field would still get updated with the data that gets accepted. Nope. Social security data has a lot of "readers" that need to query the government with a question and get the answer, but do not get the actual data that can give you the answer. None of those organizations are empowered to write back any confirmation they get. For very good reasons, the government does not let random consumers overwrite social security data. The system is instead designed to be tolerant of bad data and encourage lower level groups to merely check for eligibility. A concrete example: In our state's insurance marketplace, if your name on the application does not match your name in the Social Security database, it gets flagged. You then provide the state documentation that proves you are the person with the name on the application. That clears the issue and allows you to get your health insurance benefits, but does NOT update the row in the social security database! Doing so would require allowing a downstream, el-cheapo third party contractor application to randomly overwrite whatever it wants in the literally national database. That's a stupid idea. This isn't Google, where randomly shutting off accounts on mistakes is fine. When the government does that, we are supposed to tell them not to do that.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
bagels 2y ago
Would you be surprised to learn that there are other data sources and processes in place to make sure that dead people don't get benefits, even if this one database table doesn't have all the information? Even a cursory search will show this.

dkjaudyeqooe 2y ago

That's not what the law or administrative statutes say, you can prove eligibility without a birth date. You're simply ignorant on this matter.

frugalmail 2y ago
You're again trying to attack instead of establishing a logical explanation. It's clear you're not here in good faith. Regardless of how somebody establishes their birth date, that field would still get updated with the data that gets accepted. If that field is invalid, and somebody is receiving payments, then it's wrong.
- Kolya 2y ago
  There are ways you could establish eligibility without a birth date. For example, they may have a WW2 service record but no record of their birth.
- bagels 2y ago
  You act as though there can only be one database table in existence. It's telling that Musk did not publish the data on the age of people that are receiving payments.
- mrguyorama 2y ago
  >Regardless of how somebody establishes their birth date, that field would still get updated with the data that gets accepted. Nope. Social security data has a lot of "readers" that need to query the government with a question and get the answer, but do not get the actual data that can give you the answer. None of those organizations are empowered to write back any confirmation they get. For very good reasons, the government does not let random consumers overwrite social security data. The system is instead designed to be tolerant of bad data and encourage lower level groups to merely check for eligibility. A concrete example: In our state's insurance marketplace, if your name on the application does not match your name in the Social Security database, it gets flagged. You then provide the state documentation that proves you are the person with the name on the application. That clears the issue and allows you to get your health insurance benefits, but does NOT update the row in the social security database! Doing so would require allowing a downstream, el-cheapo third party contractor application to randomly overwrite whatever it wants in the literally national database. That's a stupid idea. This isn't Google, where randomly shutting off accounts on mistakes is fine. When the government does that, we are supposed to tell them not to do that.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

bagels 2y ago

Would you be surprised to learn that there are other data sources and processes in place to make sure that dead people don't get benefits, even if this one database table doesn't have all the information? Even a cursory search will show this.