Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Database Error Costs Social Security Victims $500M

Posted by timothy on from the drop-in-the-bucket dept.

Hugh Pickens writes "The Washington Posts reports that the Social Security Administration has agreed to pay more than $500 million in back benefits to more than 80,000 recipients whose benefits were unfairly denied after they were flagged by a federal computer program designed to catch serious criminals. At issue is a 1996 law, which contained language later nicknamed the 'fleeing felon' provision, that said fugitives were ineligible to receive federal benefits. As part of its enforcement, the administration began searching computer databases to weed out people who were collecting benefits and had outstanding warrants. The searches captured dozens of criminals, including some wanted for homicide, but they also ensnared countless elderly and disabled people accused of relatively minor offenses such as shoplifting or writing bad checks and in some cases, the victims simply shared a name and a birth date with an offender." (Read more, below.) "The lead plaintiff in the class-action suit, Rosa Martinez, 52, of Redwood City, Calif., was cut off from her $870 monthly disability benefit check in January 2008 because the system had flagged an outstanding drug warrant in 1980 for a different Rosa Martinez from Miami. Officials said it is difficult to estimate how many social security recipients might be affected by the agreement but said the number is fewer than 1 percent nationally. 'What's remarkable about this case is thesheer number of individuals who were unfairly denied benefits and the size of the financial settlement they will receive,' said David H. Fry of Munger, Tolles & Olson, one of the pro bono attorneys who represented victims."

58 of 299 comments (clear)

  1. Not a database error by abshack · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is human error. When will people learn not to make peoples' name the primary key... :/

    1. Re:Not a database error by Hubbell · · Score: 4, Funny

      How about the summary leading me to believe that is one of the dumbest laws in existence. How exactly do you pay benefits to a FUGITIVE, someone the fucking police/fbi/law enforcement and even bounty hunters can't find?

    2. Re:Not a database error by Finallyjoined!!! · · Score: 3, Funny

      There's always some sodding twat that thinks it would be brilliant to make the primary key an email address.

      If they're not already burning in hell, I'd quite like to shove a bottle of Dave's Insanity Sauce up their ring.

      Any /.'ers used the piece of total twattage that is "Sostenuto"?

      I don't have the words to describe how shite it is.

      Smiff: "But it does send emails!"

      --
      If I had an Ass, I'd call it Fanny Bottom, then I could slap my Ass; Fanny Bottom, on the Arse.
    3. Re:Not a database error by e9th · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Social Security benefits are paid regardless of where you live, which might be a country that can't/won't extradite you back to the U.S.

    4. Re:Not a database error by chrb · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The problem was not the choice of primary key. The problem was the way in which the people in charge of the process failed to consider the possibility of false positives.

      more than 80,000 recipients whose benefits were unfairly denied... The searches captured dozens of criminals

      "dozens?" Let's be generous and say 50. 50 out of 80,000 is a 99.9% rate of false positives. Not good.

    5. Re:Not a database error by StikyPad · · Score: 2

      Let's be generous and say 50.

      On the contrary, with a floor of 24 and an an infinite ceiling, 50 is quite a conservative definition of "dozens!"

      --
      https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
    6. Re:Not a database error by mysidia · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The issue is to 'identify criminals', they have to do a fuzzy search through records that may have innacuracies or transcription errors and don't have a primary key that corresponds to the SSA's primary key. E.g. Name and birthdate may be the only fields they can really search.

      In their statistical ignorance and lack of understanding of the birthday paradox, they think same name + same birthday == same persion is infallible logic.

      Instead of treating a match as an indication that they should perform further investigation, it gets treated as absolute proof. E.g. Mistakenly treating fallible data as infallible; drawing conclusions that the search result itself is not necessarily adequate to make reasonable.

      And therefore, should their search turn up any records, they deny benefits, and will not listen to any disputes, due to infallible logic of the computer: How dare you question the computer? I can imagine the SSA worker telling the upset person at the window.

      I think the Social Security Administration's primary key is called a social security number; either that, or the SSN's just a unique identifier that should have nearly a 1:1 relationship with whatever internal numerical identifier they choose as PK.

      But when a court convicts X person, they can't assign a primary key that the SSA can rely upon getting from you.

      They could ask for SSN number... but the SSN number itself isn't guaranteed to be unique, and they may still make some errors.

      The criminal could have lied about their SSN, or the record may have only contained some portion of it (such as the last 3 or 4 digits)

    7. Re:Not a database error by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 2, Informative

      Everybody = everybody. If you're in prison, they can figure that out by the marshalls escorting you. They don't know if you're listed because they don't check, since you're covered anyway. The whole point of this is so you don't have to spend so much effort on denying people. This is how you save money.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
  2. How on earth... by Omega+Hacker · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Let me get this straight: we're talking about the Social Security Administration, who is responsible for assigning every citizen a unique number which is then used to pay out benefits, and is also used by everybody's dog to act as a unique ID, presumably including the criminal justice system. The very same people who *dole out* these numbers can't be bothered to use them to cross-check whether somebody should stop getting benefits because of this law???

    --
    GStreamer - The only way to stream!
    1. Re:How on earth... by greed · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The thing about UNIVERSAL public health care is...

      It's actually not very important if you correctly identify who is getting health care.

      Your doctor needs to know who you are, and lab results need to be correctly tied to samples, and so on. But that's not a function of who's paying the bills.

      But for determining if the doctors and labs get paid? Not so much.

      Basically, all you really need to know is, "is this person a citizen or lawful immigrant?" and "is this procedure covered by the system?". It's not so important to know WHICH citizen or lawful immigrant. It's nice to get it right, but your medical history doesn't need to be part of your public health insurance ID, so it's not critical to treatment.

      Different keying problem.

      That being said... I'm amazed at how many people think there's some huge government conspiracy out to get them when they can't get simple stuff like this right. Sure, they can listen in on all cell phone calls... but they can't keep a list properly?

    2. Re:How on earth... by vux984 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      LET'S LET THEM RUN HEALTH CARE NEXT!

      Yes, let's.

      On the one hand, are you under some delusion that your health insurance company is somehow doing a better job? With greater reliability, efficiency, and accountability? Fewer errors, fewer denied valid claims?? Do you just take it on faith, or do you have any evidence at all that your insurance company is doing a better job?

    3. Re:How on earth... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 3, Funny

      On the one hand, are you under some delusion that your health insurance company is somehow doing a better job? With greater reliability, efficiency, and accountability? Fewer errors, fewer denied valid claims?? Do you just take it on faith, or do you have any evidence at all that your insurance company is doing a better job?

      Well they're making tons of money, so they must be doing something right! =D

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    4. Re:How on earth... by vux984 · · Score: 2, Informative

      I like how you leapt from assumption to assumption until you landed at your preferred conclusion.

      I'm curious what you think my conclusion was.

      The only assumption I made was that the parent poster has zero data whatsoever that would demonstrate that the people currently running health care aren't making worse mistakes / decisions.

      And my conclusion, for the record, really wasn't that government health care would be better or more reliable or anything. My point was that before we label the government as categorically unfit to run it, we should establish that the people currently in charge are actually doing a better job than the gov't would.

      As far as my bias on the subject, yes, I am in favor of govt doing what they are proposing. Everything I've read and seen about the actual bill (as opposed to stuff like that vacuum skulled Palin's fictional death panels) is quite reasonable.

      And there is clear evidence from Europe and Canada that government run health care is delivering better results than the status quo, and at lower costs.

      And finally, the govt ALREADY runs health care for the military and has for decades, and I don't think they've proven categorically unfit to run it -- and I don't see any horrific "death panels", nor do I see any "washington bureaucrats blocking doctors from giving care" either.

      This is why the health care reform debate is a shit-flinging monkey fight.

      Its a shit flinging monkey fight because, in this case, the right is making asses of themselves.

      (And I'm not saying the left don't make asses of themselves on a regular basis, but in this case, its the right.)

    5. Re:How on earth... by rho · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If I had a real point, that would have been one of them. Single-payer proponents all point to a lot of other governments to say how great it is. It's harder to make the case that the U.S. government can do as well. For example, Medicare is enduring severe cost overruns and is rife with corruption.

      Nobody ever talks about how great the U.S. government would be. They always say "it's working great in Australia!" Which can be perfectly true, but irrelevant, unless we adopt the Australian system, every jot and tittle--or hire Australia to run our health care system as well.

      --
      Potato chips are a by-yourself food.
    6. Re:How on earth... by rho · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The only assumption I made was that the parent poster has zero data whatsoever that would demonstrate that the people currently running health care aren't making worse mistakes / decisions.

      That was a pretty poor assumption, since I never insinuated any such thing. The point began and ended with noting that the U.S. federal government is well-known for its gaffes, and that they're never referenced in any debate on health reform.

      I don't know why you took such a simple idea and ran for the hills with it, but I bet it annoys people around you.

      --
      Potato chips are a by-yourself food.
    7. Re:How on earth... by c0nman · · Score: 3, Informative

      Q20: Are Social Security numbers reused after a person dies?

      A: No. We do not reassign a Social Security number (SSN) after the number holder's death. Even though we have issued over 415 million SSNs so far, and we assign about 5 and one-half million new numbers a year, the current numbering system will provide us with enough new numbers for several generations into the future with no changes in the numbering system.

    8. Re:How on earth... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Pretty sure I'll still like money then too. :)

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    9. Re:How on earth... by vux984 · · Score: 2, Informative

      The point began and ended with noting that the U.S. federal government is well-known for its gaffes, and that they're never referenced in any debate on health reform.

      And my counter point was that the private enterprise is known for its gaffes too, and covering them up, and denying any accountability. Not to mention operating at a far lower level of scrutiny. And all this isn't referenced either.

      I don't know why you took such a simple idea and ran for the hills with it

      If by "ran for the hills with it", you mean that I pointed out that your point really applies just as well vs private health care, then sure. Maybe I made the point with antagonistic rhetoric, but really, my point was as simple as yours, and directed right at it.

    10. Re:How on earth... by NaCh0 · · Score: 3, Informative

      With the current bill in congress, you don't even have to be a lawful immigrant. Perhaps that's why the government going to count the illegal aliens in the 2010 census. (presumably not asking their immigration status)

    11. Re:How on earth... by GaryPatterson · · Score: 2, Informative

      As an Australian, I'm a bit surprised that we're held up as any kind of model for health insurance.

      The previous government insituted a 30% rebate on healthcare insurance, to help prop-up those companies with taxpayers funds. You get that back at tax time. Even with the rebate enticing people in, health insurance has risen many times since this policy came in.

      If you choose not to be in the private healthcare system, you pay a penalty at tax time that increases by 2% every year from 30 onwards. I think it's around $800 or so.

      On top of that, every now and then you see stories in the news about the rise of cosmetic surgery, done through private healthcare (and of course increasing premiums for all members). Several of them even advertise this, as well as alternative therapies.

      Finally, private hospitals don't run ambulance services or have emergency departments. That's all done on the public purse. They only do the things that make them money. And when any hospital performs an operation, they bump the cost up for privately insured patients who must pay the difference between the bill and the (lower) scheduled fee.

      So we've got welfare for corporations who apparently can't survive unless they're propped up by taxpayer money, penalties for refusing to get on board the gravy train, private hospitals picking and choosing what they'll treat and specialists making a fat pile of cash out of anyone on private insurance.

      There are plenty of good things about the system, but thre way insurance is handled is pretty awful.

    12. Re:How on earth... by NNKK · · Score: 2, Informative

      Illegal aliens have ALWAYS been counted in the census, regardless of who was in charge. Stop watching Fox Noise and go do some reading, starting with the Constitution. It says nothing about citizenship or immigration status. The present controlling language is in the 14th Amendment:

      "Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed."

      Even knowing how ignorant people are, it still amazes me how many bitch and moan about the federal government's actions without bothering to check the Constitution -- the owner's manual for our nation -- to see what it has to say.

    13. Re:How on earth... by vux984 · · Score: 2, Informative

      ..of those that have no health insurance, about 0%.

      But that's not 300 million people now is it? So you just pick whatever suits you?

      I guess you havent let a tooth rot out. If you had,...

      I was in my early twenties, broke, and living on my own. After I spent an hour just rocking back and forth on the floor waiting for the pain to subside, well past the point where I had already tried to use a pair of pliers on it but couldn't get a grip... a friend took me to the hospital.

      You obviously worry constantly about every little ailment.

      You don't even begin to have a clue.

      Thats right. It ends in no pain every single time. The nerve dies. No nerve, no pain.

      While I believe you, that it would have eventually subsided, I didn't wait to find out. No sane person would have. ... your willfully blind ignorance

      This coming from a guy who thinks "prevention" is some sort of snake oil scam.

      But your right, its no longer productive to converse.

  3. DB indexed on the wrong key, obviously ... by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ... in some cases, the victims simply shared a name and a birth date with an offender.

    But I imagine they do not, with the exception of ID fraud, share a Social Security number?

    --
    I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    1. Re:DB indexed on the wrong key, obviously ... by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 4, Informative

      The problem is that in all probability the database of the criminals does not have their SSN. Therefore there is no way to know if the Rosa Martinez in Redwood, CA is the Rosa Martinez with an outstanding drug warrant from Miami, FL or not. Of course it would have been nice if someone had thought this through before they passed a law, but then as we have recently discovered it is just too much work for Congressman to actually read the laws before they pass them.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    2. Re:DB indexed on the wrong key, obviously ... by psiphiorg · · Score: 2, Insightful

      when a 1500 page bill lands on a congresscritter's desk 2-3 days before the vote, what do you expect?

      I expect them to vote "No", on the grounds that they don't know whether it's a good bill or not. Sure, whoever gave them the document said it was a good bill, but a Congressman should know better than to trust another Congressman.

      davidh

    3. Re:DB indexed on the wrong key, obviously ... by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, but when a 1500 page bill lands on a congresscritter's desk 2-3 days before the vote, what do you expect?

      As someone else replied, I expect them to vote against that 1500 (or 500, or 100 or 2) page bill that they haven't had time to read.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    4. Re:DB indexed on the wrong key, obviously ... by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 3, Interesting

      What is recent about it is leaders of the House actually saying that Congressmen(and women) can't be expected to read the bills they are voting on(and if they did read them they couldn't understand them).

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    5. Re:DB indexed on the wrong key, obviously ... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This seems so obvious, I wonder how many people in the USA have written to the candidates before elections saying that they will not vote for anyone who does not pledge to vote against any bill that he or she has not had time to read thoroughly. Passing no law is almost always better than passing a bad law.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  4. And that's what happens by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 5, Interesting

    when you make everybody do the job that the police are supposed to be doing. Who thought it would be a good idea for Social Security people to be screening criminals? (Newt Gingrich and his Contract on America congress in 1996, that's who). Screening criminals is what the police should be doing. What's next? Is the FBI going to be paving the roads?

    --
    Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
    1. Re:And that's what happens by sycodon · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Or the IRS and SSA enforcing Health Insurance regulations?

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    2. Re:And that's what happens by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 2, Funny

      Is the FBI going to be paving the roads?

      That would explain why there are potholes big enough to stop any gataway car in its tracks.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    3. Re:And that's what happens by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 2

      No, you got it all wrong. Drug dealers can get away with what they do because drugs are illegal, making that entire aspect of the economy beyond the reach of the IRS.

      The system gets fucked up because we fuck it up on purpose! Maybe we don't realize what we're doing, but it's not like things happen for no reason at all.

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
  5. What a stupid law. by pavon · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'm not getting this law. First off, social security isn't some charity program, paid for by other taxpayers. It is money that the citizens/criminals paid into the system and deserve to get back, regardless of what else they have done in life. Besides, are we really doing ourselves a favor by denying ex-cons their own money that they need to survive in their old age?

    Furthermore, if it really is about current fugitives, then wouldn't the government love to know a mailing address for these people so they can arrest them, rather than just refusing SS payment?

    1. Re:What a stupid law. by gbutler69 · · Score: 2, Informative

      First off, social security isn't some charity program, paid for by other taxpayers. It is money that the citizens/criminals paid into the system and deserve to get back, regardless of what else they have done in life.

      Bzzzt! WRONG!

      ALL current Social Security recipients have received more in benefits than they EVER paid into the system. It IS NOT an investement! It is exactly what it says SOCIAL SECURITY. It is a TAX that all workers pay to fund the care and retirement of the older generation. It is good!

      --
      Over-the-top Response Guy! Giving "Over-the-Top Responses" since 1970.
    2. Re:What a stupid law. by jackbird · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is why you should be deeply distrustful of government interference in healthcare: they can use your health to put you in a box.

      Isn't that an even better reason to be deeply distrustful of employer and insurance company interference in healthcare?

  6. Defending the SS admins by hellfire · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Okay, you geeks all confuse me. First you say that by law no one should be using the SSN as a unique identifier except for the SSA itself. Then you ask why aren't people using this unique number to avoid mistakes!!!

    I don't blame the SS because they were doing what they were told to do, cut off what someone defined as criminals. The problem was the definition, and how to link SS roles with all these outstanding warrants and whatnot. Are we sure the criminal records all have SSNs? Or could it be that we did a join on some other column and hoped for the best and thought 98% was good enough? I can see a programmer being forced to do the latter by a stupid law. How many John Smiths without proper social security numbers were in the dataset they had to work with?

    This was a stupid law to begin with, and probably had some stupid premises to get the information linked up. Never allow a politician to act like a project manager, they'll never get it right.

    --

    "All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"

    1. Re:Defending the SS admins by Chris+Burke · · Score: 2, Funny

      You shouldn't cut people's benefits because they share a name with someone with a bench warrant

      Ah, yes, and now you understand the real problem.

      next they'll make up a scret list of names that keep people off planes.

      Hehe.

      Lady behind the counter, just after telling me that I was on a TSA Watch List: "There must be an evil Chris Burke out there."

      Me: *shifty eyes* Yeah, some other Chris Burke must be evil...

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
  7. Unique Enough? by gknoy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "Unique Enough" isn't.

    1. Re:Unique Enough? by Dragonslicer · · Score: 2, Informative

      "Unique Enough" isn't.

      It's unique enough for now. The current population of the US is a little over 300 million. There are 1 billion possible Social Security numbers. There haven't been 1 billion people alive in the US since Social Security started, and there won't be for probably 50-75 years, at which point they'd have to start reusing numbers of people that died 100 years earlier. Hopefully by then the government will have added another few digits, which would be enough to last for another thousand years or so.

  8. Cut to aerial camera view... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    I look up and shake my fist -- COBOL!!!!!!

  9. One would think .... by jackspenn · · Score: 3, Insightful

    One would think the SSN could serve as a unique identifier.

    And our non-representative representatives in Congress wonder why so many people don't trust them to run the healthcare system.

    I can see it now

    We're sorry Matt Hew Johnson, we accidentally removed your leg as per operation instructions intended for Matthew Johnson down the hall. Now I know you think you got the bad end of the deal. I mean you loosing your leg and him getting the heart transplant you expected, but before you start complaining, recognize, you are B+ and he is type A-. Poor bastard will be lucky if he makes it through the night, which means your likely to get double breakfast tomorrow courtesy of Uncle Sammy. That should cheer you up, gimpy. Well, I would love to stay and chat, but union regs say I get to take a 30 minute break every half hour.

    --
    Respect the Constitution
    1. Re:One would think .... by StikyPad · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You know, military healthcare in general gets a lot of negative attention, but it's still better than any private program I've ever had. The idea of "death boards" is absolutely ridiculous -- the military will do anything in its power to treat someone, even if it means flying them halfway across the globe. And there's certainly no higher incidence of incompetence in military providers than in the civilian sector, especially when you consider that many military medical personnel moonlight at local clinics and hospitals.

      Choosing between a few days of bedrest in a hospital with some peeling paint, making years of payments to cover my deductible/spending cap, or filing for bankruptcy, and in either case possibly losing my coverage and the ability to get new insurance, I'd pick the former. With insurance companies competing based on who can deny the most coverage, and most people unable to even chose their insurers in the first place (in any meaningful way), the state of healthcare in the US has nowhere to go but up.

      --
      https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
    2. Re:One would think .... by Dragonslicer · · Score: 2, Interesting

      One of the best things I saw was a couple weeks ago when Bill Kristol was on The Daily Show. Kristol is completely opposed to government-run health care, but Jon Stewart talked him into saying how military personnel deserve and generally get the best health care possible. It was great to see such hypocrisy get nailed.

  10. Re:$500M/80K = how much? by 680x0 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Sounds like Rosa Martinez might be getting back more than $870/mo worth. Even going all the way back to 1996, that's an average of about $40,000/mo per person.

    What are you smoking? $500 million, divided by 80,000 people is an average of $6250 per person, total. Assuming they were all getting $870 per month, they were being paid for an average of a little over 7 months.

  11. Um - No, not yet at least by HiChris! · · Score: 5, Informative

    Actually, even SSN are not 'unique'. They try and keep it unique for each generation, but they've already started reusing numbers.

    SSNs are not currently re-used. They may potentially be reissued but we are talking 50+ years from now. See http://www.ssa.gov/history/hfaq.html

    1. Re:Um - No, not yet at least by AnAdventurer · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I found a customer at the bank I have a business account at is using my EIN as his SS# They give someone a mortgage to someone based on my s-corps financial filings (I guess). I looked into it, we can't get the house. The bank didn't seem to care much either.

      --
      6.8SPC TR of 550, l xwind at 6, drift rt at 26" drops 77". AT has 503 ft-lbs at 1403 fps. FT 0.86
    2. Re:Um - No, not yet at least by avxo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Except that's not reuse. An EIN is not a social security number. Repeat after me, an EIN is not a social security number! Just because your telephone number is 666-555-1212 and my driver's license number is 666-55-1211 doesn't mean the DMV is reusing telephone numbers as driver's license numbers.

    3. Re:Um - No, not yet at least by dwreid · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I suppose by "re-used" you mean reissued. I currently have 3 illegal aliens using my SSN right now. I've spoken to the Social Security Administrtion. They know about these people. They confirmed it. They also told me that they can't do anything about it because they don't pass information to law enforcement agencies. I spend untold hours every year correcting entries into my credit reports from these lawbreaking, bad check writing, no bill paying assholes. It's a great system we have.

    4. Re:Um - No, not yet at least by TheRaven64 · · Score: 3, Informative

      There's no law preventing you from passing this information on to immigration...

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    5. Re:Um - No, not yet at least by Nutria · · Score: 2, Insightful

      they don't pass information to law enforcement agencies

      Have you contacted your Representative and Senators?

      You might be stuck if they are Democrats kissing La Rasa's ass, but if local Republicans make an issue of it, that might "stimulate" you Congressmen to act out of self-defense.

      I spend untold hours every year correcting entries

      Get a new SSN?

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    6. Re:Um - No, not yet at least by alta · · Score: 2, Funny

      Liar, I called that number and he didin't answer. It was some damn La Rasa member! Probably in training to be a supreme court justice.

      --
      Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins, for they are subtle, and quick to anger.
  12. What they needed was a primary key... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    What they needed was some sort of primary key for their social security tables, with which to match against. Perhaps a number, unique to each individual?

  13. Do away with it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    We wouldn't have these problems if they simply did away with Social Security entirely. It was never meant to be a retirement plan for every citizen. It cannot possibly dole out the benefits it has promised to future generations. It is a freaking pyramid scheme, and a poorly planned one at that.

    I've been paying into it for decades now, and I'd still rather they just let me cut my losses. Think of the boost to the economy if OASDI and Medicare wasn't stolen from your paycheck. That and we could get rid of the entire bloated Social Security Administration and the vast mountains of useless paperwork generated by mindless drones.

    Really now, how long are we going to stare at the gaping bleeding wound in the economy and say to ourselves "dang, that hurts, should probably do something about that before I bleed out."

  14. Re:$500M/80K = how much? by GaryOlson · · Score: 3, Funny

    Less tar?
    More zip!?

    --
    Every mans' island needs an ocean; choose your ocean carefully.
  15. Completely Offtopic by scot4875 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Has the healthcare "protesting" spilled into other discussions now? This is the second post already that I've read that's completely offtopic. Are you being encouraged to shout down *everyone*?

    Also, to respond directly to your post, how is your scenario of mistaking "Matt Hew Johnson" with "Matthew Johnson" in adjacent rooms relevant to anything?

    It sure would be great to hear a logical argument against government healthcare that couldn't be countered with, "but how is that any different than what we already have?" But instead, all we get to hear about is government incompetence and SOCIALISM!!!!

    --Jeremy

    --
    Jesus was a liberal
  16. By 'Social Security victims' do they mean... by DustoneGT · · Score: 5, Insightful

    the people who are forced to pay into the unsustainable scheme?

  17. Urban Justice Center filed this lawsuit w/ others by jeffsenter · · Score: 2, Informative

    My employer the Mental Health Project of the Urban Justice Center is one of the nonprofits on this lawsuit.

    The Press Release from www.urbanjustice.org

    The Social Security Administration (SSA) will repay over $500 million to 80,000 individuals whose benefits were suspended or denied since January 1, 2007, under a nationwide class action settlement which U.S. District Court Judge Claudia Wilken preliminarily approved on August 11, 2009. Many more people who were denied benefits between 2000 and 2006 will also have the chance to re-establish their eligibility. All told, more than 200,000 individuals will receive back benefits and/or have benefits re-instated under this settlement.

    The settlement resolves a class action lawsuit challenging SSAâ(TM)s unlawful policy of suspending or denying benefits based on warrant information. The lawsuit, Martinez v. Astrue, disputed SSAâ(TM)s interpretation of a narrowly drawn provision of the Social Security Act, which prohibits payment of benefits to anyone "fleeing to avoid prosecution" for a felony.

    Courts across the country have held that the law does not permit SSA to suspend or deny benefits without a finding that the person had the intent to flee. However, SSA had continued to suspend or deny benefits to thousands each month based only on a crude computer matching system using outstanding warrant information.

    This unlawful policy has had devastating consequences on the lives of elderly and disabled individuals, many of whom rely upon Social Security benefits as their only income and, without their rightfully due benefits, have been unable to pay for rent or other basic necessities. Moreover, the absence of a functioning appeal system left people without recourse to challenge these denials for years; individuals were routinely and inaccurately told that they could not appeal these decisions, even though an appeals process does in fact exist. This settlement will allow class members â" many of whom have been rendered destitute, homeless, and dependent on relatives and charity â" to rebuild their lives.
    A fairness hearing is scheduled to occur September 24, 2009, where Judge Wilken will hear any objections before deciding whether to grant final approval.

    Urban Justice Center, National Senior Citizens Law Center, Disability Rights California, Legal Aid Society of San Mateo County and pro bono counsel Munger, Tolles & Olson represent plaintiffs in this class action.
    Court documents and relevant materials can be found on this page. For more information, contact Emilia Sicilia.

  18. Pro bono? by booch · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I think the most shocking part of the story is that the lawyers were working pro bono on a class action case -- especially one this big.

    --
    Software sucks. Open Source sucks less.