State of MI Unemployment Ins. Fraud Computer Sys Had 70% Error Rate

My God. The article speaks for itself, but of those who did not contest the finding of unemployment ins. fraud, 70% were 'false positives', that is found fraud where none existed.

Flint has their bad water. Lansing [[the state) has their bad data [[or computer systems, or both)... Not good.

http://www.freep.com/story/news/loca...ngs/559880001/

Crains has a much more detailed story including references to errors in when income was earned, i.e., income was earned outside the period of time the claimant indicated he or she did not work was reported incorrectly by the employer [[wrong time period).

http://www.crainsdetroit.com/article...ployment-fraud

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by emu steve

My God. The article speaks for itself, but of those who did not contest the finding of unemployment ins. fraud, 70% were 'false positives', that is found fraud where none existed....
http://www.freep.com/story/news/loca...ngs/559880001/...

---

Quote:

---

The nearly 63,000 fraud findings reviewed were lumped into two groups, the agency said Friday. It said 40,195 were robo-adjudicated by MiDAS with no human involvement and those had an 85% error rate. Another 22,589 cases involving some human interaction had a 44% error rate, the agency said. Earlier, the agency said the error rate for cases robo-adjudicated with no human involvement was higher -- 93%.

---

"Robo-adjudicated"?! Is that yet another new thing that citizens now need to defend themselves against? It's safe to bet that there is no new additional penalty the state must pay for "robo- = using a computer to commit a crime"!

How is it a good thing to pour salt into the wound of unemployment?

Also, was this an unintentional accident or was it a deliberate assault against the downtrodden with a convenient element of plausible deniability, testing whether the assault would be opposed then exploiting it if not? E.g., see The GOP's Stealth War Against Voters.

It has become increasing difficult to detect the difference in this age of the rule of The Parasitic Saboteurs In Power.

Thanks for raising the issue, Steve.

Jimaz,

I see several big fairness issues here and other cases [[let me explain):

1). This appears to be a faulty computer system which has more holes than Swiss cheese [['bugs'). The human back up within the total system, [computer, data [[bad data - garage in/garbage out), and human], also seemed poor.

People who are supposed to be helped by the system were hurt and the state apparently 'threw the book at them.'

2). While this is going on, it appears, and I'm trying to be fair and non-political, but Mr. Manafort may have money laundered, not reported foreign income, etc. etc. and he probably would have gotten away with it had it not been the questions about Russian influence in the 2016 election. [Edit: those who are following this and the FBI raid, apparently Special Counsel Mueller is looking hard at Manaforts finances, transactions, taxes, etc.]

So the un-employed in Michigan are facing the wrath of the state over what appears to be errors in the computer system [[computer programs, bad data, bad human procedures, etc.) over a few thousand dollars while Mr. Manafort may have hidden or laundered millions of dollars...

This is what p*sses off most Americans.

Detnews has a good article on this governance disaster...

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/new...aud/104501978/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jimaz

"Robo-adjudicated"?! Is that yet another new thing that citizens now need to defend themselves against? It's safe to bet that there is no new additional penalty the state must pay for "robo- = using a computer to commit a crime"!

How is it a good thing to pour salt into the wound of unemployment?

Also, was this an unintentional accident or was it a deliberate assault against the downtrodden with a convenient element of plausible deniability, testing whether the assault would be opposed then exploiting it if not? E.g., see The GOP's Stealth War Against Voters.

It has become increasing difficult to detect the difference in this age of the rule of The Parasitic Saboteurs In Power.

Thanks for raising the issue, Steve.

---

You raise a great point about people being accused of fraud without a human reviewing the data to verify that the the caseworker agrees with the findings of the computer system.

A computerized system, like this one, should be used to SCREEN for suspected cases of fraud but the suspected fraud cases should then be researched/verified by humans.

The other issue, with so many budget cuts in MI because of financial issues over the years I wonder how many problems there are in Lansing with computer systems, etc.? Cutting corners?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by emu steve

You raise a great point about people being accused of fraud without a human reviewing the data to verify that the the caseworker agrees with the findings of the computer system.

A computerized system, like this one, should be used to SCREEN for suspected cases of fraud but the suspected fraud cases should then be researched/verified by humans.

The other issue, with so many budget cuts in MI because of financial issues over the years I wonder how many problems there are in Lansing with computer systems, etc.? Cutting corners?

---

I agree with you 100% EMU, computer analysis has its place, but it should just then refer you to a fraud investigation unit.

That all being true, unemployment is widely abused even where the law is obeyed. Many people [[and I am speaking directly of people I have known) apply for and get unemployment while at least one of the following is true:

1) They have under-the-table, undisclosed income.
2) They voluntarily left their employer.
3) They were justifiably terminated for substance abuse, fighting, no-showing, etc.
4) Received a planned layoff [[from seasonal work, etc) with no attempt to plan for the off-season.
5) Choose to not really look for work, and take the "unenjoyment" while it lasts.
6) Turned down offers of work they didn't want to do/felt was beneath them.
7) Continued to drink, smoke, travel & have fun in life despite accepting unemployment.

I believe that there should be a state-run and funded unemployment safety net, but it should be very temporary, have strict guidelines about both personal behavior and personal responsibility, and require both a work component and a personal improvement component.

To receive unemployment benefits you should be:
-banned from drinking/smoking/drugs, gambling and vacationing
-required to work 20 hours of community service per week [[daycare & transportation assistance should be available if needed), working outside wearing bright pink t-shirts or jackets that say THANK YOU FOR SUPPORTING ME WHILE I LOOK FOR WORK.
-be entered into a publicly browsable database with your resume and availability
-attend weekly job training/career prep courses
-have a maximum of 26 weeks of unemployment in any 18-month period, 78 weeks of lifetime unemployment

And like all public assistance programs, if you are ever proven to have committed fraud, in addition to any criminal sanction, you should be banned for life from assistance programs.

Asking others to support you should come with the understanding that you will be responsible and seek to get off assistance as quickly as possible.

Quote:

---

7) Continued to drink, smoke, travel & have fun in life despite accepting unemployment.

---

Thanks for the Saturday morning chuckle. No fun for you !

Quote:

---

working outside wearing bright pink t-shirts or jackets that say THANK YOU FOR SUPPORTING ME WHILE I LOOK FOR WORK.

---

Joe Arpaio?

Mikey,

One thing I believe you may be missing:

Social Security, Medicare, UI, Workmen's Compensation are all INSURANCE programs; they should not be considered or compared to public assistance programs regardless of how one feels about the unemployed.

Food stamps, for example, OTOH is public assistance.

In the case of Medicare and Social Security the worker directly pays his or her share of the premium [[tax). In the case of UI and Workmen's Compensation the employer pays the tax on behalf of the employees.

Quote:

---

To receive unemployment benefits you should be:

---

A committed Republican ass hat that had no reason to even be in the fund in the first place. When you can say, [[Been there, done that) , and were at the powers that be, lost you're car, home, and livelihood, then we'll talk.

That free ride you talk about, is based on the previous earnings which is based on the previous unemployment that was based on the low wage job in the first place. Which means no rent payment, no car payment, no health insurance. And at the mercy of the Republican Congress for the repeal/replace heath care for this generation. No wait, they never had a plan in the first place.

Sad. So Sad, So Sad. I'm the greatest.

Yeah, the high life.

"The agency said it reviewed 62,784 cases in which people were assessed a fraud penalty between October 2013 and August 2015 and did not seek an appeal and found that more than 44,000 of those cases — or about 70% — did not involve fraud."

So 62.7k choose not to appeal. Why?

Then...

"The agency said that in most of the cases that were reviewed, the claimant had received benefits which they were not entitled to, but did not intend to commit fraud."

What's up with that?

Dan,

This sounds like issues with administrative issues, that is, the ability to properly adjudicate claims for unemployment insurance benefits.

It may sound easy but harder to adjudicate in fact.

I would assume there could be issues like if a person gets severance pay which is can be fractional weeks, e.g. 3 weeks, 2 days or if the termination does not occur on the last day of a work week. E.g., a business closes it doors on a Tuesday. Then eligibility issues can be complicated.

I would assume that there could always be questions if the claimant is entitled to his/her first or last week of benefits.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Wesson

So 62.7k choose not to appeal. Why?

---

Maybe they were never told they could, or how to go about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meddle

Joe Arpaio?

---

Nope. But putting a tad bit of shame in not paying your own way is a good thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by emu steve

Mikey,

One thing I believe you may be missing:

Social Security, Medicare, UI, Workmen's Compensation are all INSURANCE programs; they should not be considered or compared to public assistance programs regardless of how one feels about the unemployed.

Food stamps, for example, OTOH is public assistance.

In the case of Medicare and Social Security the worker directly pays his or her share of the premium [[tax). In the case of UI and Workmen's Compensation the employer pays the tax on behalf of the employees.

---

Taking only the benefit mentioned in this thread [[unemployment) for discussion for the moment, there is actually nothing related to insurance about it, except perhaps in title. "Insurance" as we know it [[like auto, homeowner's, renter's, etc. Health insurance isn't really insurance anymore, it's a corporatist utility) involves people paying voluntarily into a pool in order to receive a potential benefit, should a specific qualified and demonstrable need arise. In order to receive such benefits, you need to pay into the system, and you are assessed a rate of payment based upon the likelihood that you will need to collect, derived of both demographic and personal data.

True unemployment "insurance" would be something a financial institution set up, to voluntarily allow people to pay premiums based on a level insurance they desire to have, and their likelihood of seeking a benefit. Your employment history is strongly indicative of your employment future, so job history would tremendously affect premiums. And, just like more car accidents leading to higher auto premiums, more and longer periods between work would drive up your costs. Being someone people want to employ would both bring down the cost of your unemployment insurance and your likelihood to need it.

I think it is both rather humorous and telling that people neglect to remember that I ACTUALLY FAVOR an unemployment benefit system. I just don't think the government should be used to force someone to fork over their money [[individuals or businesses) to support someone who is both unemployed and unwilling to meet a basic set of criteria affecting their employment situation in order to receive other people's money. How about this: don't like strings attached to taking someone else's money: DON'T TAKE SOMEONE ELSE'S MONEY. Criteria like I lay out would be beneficial for 2 reasons: the real needy cases would be forced onto a hard work and self-improvement path to get the money [[and I would pair it with other social services as needed); the mooches that are out there would find those limitations and rules worse than not getting it.

As for Social Security and Medicare, they are actuarily demonstrated to be wealth transfer programs. The average person will collect substantially more than they paid in, adjusted for inflation. That was unwise but feasible when there were far more workers to seniors than there are today. Pretending Uncle Sam has a magical pot with your name on it with lots of money in it waiting for you in your golden years, if believed, is very stupid. Social Security is actually structured as a ponzi scheme. Bernie Madoff used the federal government as a role model. Only he couldn't print money or borrow from his great, great grandchildren to stay out of jail.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jimaz

"Robo-adjudicated"?! Is that yet another new thing that citizens now need to defend themselves against? ...

---

Nothing wrong with using computers in efforts to control fraud. Its only wrong if the penalties are applied without the opportunity to review the situation.

Of course computers make things faster, but I don't know that their any less accurate than the humans at various agencies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch

...I don't know that theirthey're any less accurate than the humans at various agencies.

---

And you won't ever know until you read the above material that we're discussing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikeyinBrooklyn

To receive unemployment benefits you should be:
-banned from drinking/smoking/drugs, gambling and vacationing
-required to work 20 hours of community service per week [[daycare & transportation assistance should be available if needed), working outside wearing bright pink t-shirts or jackets that say THANK YOU FOR SUPPORTING ME WHILE I LOOK FOR WORK.

---

Yes, because being fired isn't soul searing enough, you need to be publicly shamed and mocked. Maybe you could make Medicaid recipients put on yellow tutus and sing "I'm a Little Teapot" before they're treated.

I hope you never find yourself in a situation where you need assistance. But if you do find yourself there, I hope you're treated with dignity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archfan

Yes, because being fired isn't soul searing enough, you need to be publicly shamed and mocked. Maybe you could make Medicaid recipients put on yellow tutus and sing "I'm a Little Teapot" before they're treated.

I hope you never find yourself in a situation where you need assistance. But if you do find yourself there, I hope you're treated with dignity.

---

You probably also believe every one of those guys on the street corners smiling and waving @ you with a homeless sign in their hands really are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archfan

Yes, because being fired isn't soul searing enough, you need to be publicly shamed and mocked. Maybe you could make Medicaid recipients put on yellow tutus and sing "I'm a Little Teapot" before they're treated.

I hope you never find yourself in a situation where you need assistance. But if you do find yourself there, I hope you're treated with dignity.

---

Dignity is not relevant to fixing the situation of being unemployed. Family and friends should provide the hugs. The unemployment system should only be there to assist an individual in correcting the employment issue, and insisting on personal responsibility, hard work, self-improvement and a little demonstration of gratitude during that time would lead to fewer people needing unemployment, and for shorter periods of time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikeyinBrooklyn

Taking only the benefit mentioned in this thread [[unemployment) for discussion for the moment, there is actually nothing related to insurance about it, except perhaps in title. "Insurance" as we know it [[like auto, homeowner's, renter's, etc. Health insurance isn't really insurance anymore, it's a corporatist utility) involves people paying voluntarily into a pool in order to receive a potential benefit, should a specific qualified and demonstrable need arise. In order to receive such benefits, you need to pay into the system, and you are assessed a rate of payment based upon the likelihood that you will need to collect, derived of both demographic and personal data.

True unemployment "insurance" would be something a financial institution set up, to voluntarily allow people to pay premiums based on a level insurance they desire to have, and their likelihood of seeking a benefit. Your employment history is strongly indicative of your employment future, so job history would tremendously affect premiums. And, just like more car accidents leading to higher auto premiums, more and longer periods between work would drive up your costs. Being someone people want to employ would both bring down the cost of your unemployment insurance and your likelihood to need it.

I think it is both rather humorous and telling that people neglect to remember that I ACTUALLY FAVOR an unemployment benefit system. I just don't think the government should be used to force someone to fork over their money [[individuals or businesses) to support someone who is both unemployed and unwilling to meet a basic set of criteria affecting their employment situation in order to receive other people's money. How about this: don't like strings attached to taking someone else's money: DON'T TAKE SOMEONE ELSE'S MONEY. Criteria like I lay out would be beneficial for 2 reasons: the real needy cases would be forced onto a hard work and self-improvement path to get the money [[and I would pair it with other social services as needed); the mooches that are out there would find those limitations and rules worse than not getting it.

As for Social Security and Medicare, they are actuarily demonstrated to be wealth transfer programs. The average person will collect substantially more than they paid in, adjusted for inflation. That was unwise but feasible when there were far more workers to seniors than there are today. Pretending Uncle Sam has a magical pot with your name on it with lots of money in it waiting for you in your golden years, if believed, is very stupid. Social Security is actually structured as a ponzi scheme. Bernie Madoff used the federal government as a role model. Only he couldn't print money or borrow from his great, great grandchildren to stay out of jail.

---

Two points:

1). UI is an insurance system as I define insurance, one pays voluntary or involuntarily, into a system based on some criteria and receive benefits based on certain criteria if certain events occur. Car, homeowners, health insurance are personal insurance. Medicare is the same a private health insurance except that the scope is different [[mandatory, etc. with the government playing a far larger role). If a 65 year old goes to the hospital for a hernia repair the hernia doesn't know if the health insurance is private or public [[Medicare).

UI is really a type of insurance where the employer pays the 'premium' to cover his/her workers in case certain events happen, e.g., employee laid off, terminated, business closes, etc.

Quick point about Social Security:

It is NOT a Ponzi scheme. Truth be told, that Social Security is OWED several trillion dollars by the general fund as Soc. Sec. has taken in MORE than it has paid out over the 75 years. Soc. Security has actually helped support the U.S. gov't general fund, NOT the other way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by emu steve

Quick point about Social Security:

It is NOT a Ponzi scheme. Truth be told, that Social Security is OWED several trillion dollars by the general fund as Soc. Sec. has taken in MORE than it has paid out over the 75 years. Soc. Security has actually helped support the U.S. gov't general fund, NOT the other way.

---

Yes, yes it is. The Social Security "trust fund" [[even if Congress had never spent a penny elsewhere) began paying out more than it takes in some years ago. The paper value- essentially meaningless because Congress did spend the money elsewhere- will be gone entirely in 2035, pending no changes being made. The current payouts to the Social Security system are subsidized by the general fund, a.k.a. deficit spending. A Ponzi scheme is one where current payouts can only be met by an ever-larger pool of people paying in. When the payouts exceed the pay-ins, the sham is exposed and the system collapses. Welcome to Social Security. Social Security seemed to work for awhile because the retirement age was actually higher than life expectancy. That hasn't been true in 40+ years. With people having fewer kids and people also living regularly into their 80s, 90s & 100s, Social Security cannot actually be made solvent.

I should also note that a private company's board of directors, if they instructed management to structure the retirement fund in the style of social security, would be both subject to criminal charges and personally exposed to civil litigation to recover losses stemming from their fraud and misconduct. But we reelect members of Congress!

emusteve, regardless of either what we call it or what you consider it, unemployment benefits are a form of public assistance. Money is dispersed via the government to individuals in need, funded by both taxpayers and involuntary "contributions" from employers. It bears no resemblance to insurance. I do not understand the need to categorize as something it is not in order to discuss it. If I labeled the strawberry-banana smoothie I had for lunch "insurance" it would not actually make it insurance.