[Chris Carey]

Hudak says he wants to crackdown on healthcare and other social service fraud... Could this policy be one of guilty until proven innocent or criminalization of poverty?

Chris

[Hope]

Chris,

Again, great post. I love the way you write. You've got me scared.

Thanks,

Melanie

[Ron Payne]

On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 11:14 PM, Chris Carey <chris...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
Hudak says he wants to crackdown on healthcare and other social service fraud... Could this policy be one of guilty until proven innocent or criminalization of poverty?
Chris

I'm afraid its the beginning of the near end my friends.

Ron Payne
Welfare Legal
Hamilton, Ontario

[T Spa]

Do you enjoy being the messenger of doom and gloom ?

---

Date: Sun, 29 May 2011 15:57:21 +0100
Subject: Re: [odspfireside: 37080 ]
From: welfarel...@gmail.com
To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ODSP Fireside" group.
To change email delivery, nickname or unsubscribe from this group visit: http://groups.google.ca/group/odspfireside/subscribe?hl=en
To post to this group via email, send email to odspfi...@googlegroups.com

[Uppity Woman]

I am all for cracking down on fraud. Maybe if the fraud was reduced, there'd be enough money for those who genuinely need it.   Uppity     -------Original Message-------

[Hope]

Oh Ron, don't scare me man. Are you serious? No, I want to
know.....I need my ODSP.

Melanie

[abrowne]

Less than 1% of the cases ... that was the stat in a study

commissioned under Mike Harris.  Even if they would

redistribute this tiny amount to others, which they won't -

it would just go to deficit reduction or tax breaks for wealthy

persons - it would hardly make a difference.

 

I am more concerned about corporate fraud; first, because

it was more widespread because our governments tend to

condone it and not clamp down on it, and secondly, each case

involves far more money than welfare fraud would.  If they

started getting involved with corporate tax evaders, posting

their pictures all over the Internet and barring them for life from

ever being permitted to be director/officer of a company again,

and so forth, we might see some results.

 

Angela

---

From: Uppity Woman <uppity...@gmail.com>
To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sun, May 29, 2011 1:26:39 PM
Subject: Re: [odspfireside: 37088 ]

[Chris Carey]

Uppity, I support anti fraud measures. My concern is the approach. How intrusiveness will new anti fraud measures be? Home investigations? Monthly interviews? Anti fraud measures could also be a backdoor to reduce the number of legitimate recipients. It could be difficult to distinguish between anti fraud and bullying.  Conservatives appear not to have anything constructive to offer ODSP. I'm concerned the program will become an easy scapegoat in bad economic times.  Chris --- On Sun, 5/29/11, Uppity Woman <uppity...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Chris Carey]

Angela, Yes, very good point! Why scapegoat ODSP and OW? This province must lose millions and millions in personal and business income tax evasion (much more than social assistance fraud). So, why not go after people who refuse to pay their fair share? Because the wealthy and upper classes wouldn't accept that. Consider this point and then you'll know how disingenuous Conservatives have been.  Chris --- On Sun, 5/29/11, abrowne <browne...@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: abrowne <browne...@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [odspfireside: 37101 ] To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com

[Uppity Woman]

Mike Harris has been out of power for almost 10 years. How about a current study? Though that wouldn't tell a true number as it doesn't include the fraud they don't know about. I've heard many stories from people who have reported fraud and nothing gets done about it. I know people who know people who are working f/t and not declaring it.   Uppity    -------Original Message-------

[Uppity Woman]

I think a good start is to actually investigate when a complaint is made.
Right now, I'm hearing people say they've called to report people and
nothing gets done.

I don't see either the liberals or ndp helping us any more than the
conservatives. McGuinty has been a huge disappointment.

Uppity


-------Original Message-------

From: Chris Carey

Date: 29/05/2011 6:17:28 PM
To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com

[Uppity Woman]

They should go after those people, too.

Uppity


-------Original Message-------

From: Chris Carey
Date: 29/05/2011 6:18:06 PM
To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com

Subject: Re: [odspfireside: 37119 ]

Angela,


Yes, very good point! Why scapegoat ODSP and OW? This province must lose
millions and millions in personal and business income tax evasion (much more
than social assistance fraud). So, why not go after people who refuse to pay
their fair share? Because the wealthy and upper classes wouldn't accept that

[abrowne]

A study is not "I know so and so is working full time and not declaring it"

A study is a review of all the reports going into the welfare fraud hotline,

which is where the Price Waterhouse Coopers study came from.  More

than half the subjects of these calls were not even on assistance!  For

those who are supposedly not declaring, actually were ... they won't report

back to the caller to tell them whether there was an investigation or if they

were right or wrong.  But I doubt the stats have changed much today.

In my opinion, we are dealing with mere pennies when compared to

what can amount to billions of dollars in tax revenues foregone as a

result of corporate and tax fraud that people like the Conservatives

never talk about, because the perpretrators of those frauds are their

friends and donate lots of money to the party.

Angela

---

From: Uppity Woman <uppity...@gmail.com>
To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Sun, May 29, 2011 7:11:52 PM
Subject: Re: [odspfireside: 37120 ]

[abrowne]

Probably because there was no fraud involved,

and even if there was, the workers will not be

returning your call to follow up with you.

 

BUT, believe me, they DO investigate every call.  I

have represented people in these cases, and have

found that workers jump through a lot of hoops to

keep people from getting a single penny they weren't

entitled to.

 

In these fraud hotlines, a neighbour, a friend, a social

worker, an ex-boyfriend, a family member, anybody can

call and bring people into a mire of an investigation in

which you are guilty before you prove yourself or you

are proven to be innocent.  Have you ever met any of

these people who were falsely accused?  I have and the

picture isn't great ... two of my cases killed themselves

and at the end of their "investigations", it was determined

there was no fraud.

 

Think Kimberly Rogers and tell me where that helped us all.

Angela

---

From: Uppity Woman <uppity...@gmail.com>
To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Sun, May 29, 2011 7:28:50 PM
Subject: Re: [odspfireside: 37124 ]

[abrowne]

I intend to go after corporate and tax

evaders, because I know the government

will not.  I will be planning boycotts, etc.

because there's no way either McGuinty or

Harper will try to charge any of their corporate

or wealthy friends with evading taxes, which

according to most reports is up to about 10%

of all filings, as opposed to less than 1% of

cases on social assistance.

Angela

 

---

From: Uppity Woman <uppity...@gmail.com>
To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Sun, May 29, 2011 7:29:53 PM
Subject: Re: [odspfireside: 37125 ]

[Chris Carey]

Angela,

Unreported crime -- it's the scourge of our time! This is what federal Conservatives say publicly to sell super max prisons. Provincial Conservatives use similar claims now about ODSP fraud -- it's an easy excuse to justify a  get tough on social assistance mentality.  

How can Conservatives possibly quantify something that's unknown or unidentified? Say, like so-called preexisting fraud? It's only fraud once a conviction is made. This is a total red herring.

Chris

[Ron Payne]

I don't know why you would want to shoot the messenger here but the answer to you question is yes and no

I was simply commenting on the facts that Chris had put forward.

I picked my words very carefully.

I'm afraid its the beginning of the near end my friends.

My comment was to provoke thought and dialogue.

The facts as I see them are clear.

If we have a majority Conservative federal government with a majority Conservative Provincial government we will see changes like we have never seen before.

These changes will hurt all that live in poverty.

Ron Payne
Welfare Legal
Hamilton, Ontario

On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 4:24 PM, T Spa <tspaff...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Do you enjoy being the messenger of doom and gloom ?

On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 11:14 PM, Chris Carey <chris...@rocketmail.com> wrote:

Hudak says he wants to crackdown on healthcare and other social service fraud.Chris

[Finn]

Hello all - I'm 'delurking' without so much as a friendly greeting but
I recently started a new course of steroids, haven't slept in over
sixtyhours, my kidneys are failing, and this whole fraud issue makes
my brain hurt.

Language is potent. Out here in WebLand there is no tone, body
language, smiles or laughter. This vehicle runs on words alone. In the
early days of Usenet we used ASCII characters to create smiles and
winks. Today's emoticons are the great grandchilden of those awkward
little characters and we rely on them to deflect a real or imagined
harshness our words might inspire.

Perhaps if there had been a three dimensional day-glo dancing lady bug
at the end of your comment I would have only seen the common sense,
but all I saw was my fear and anger.

Please consider what it means to be supportive of cracking down on
fraud. This is not a level playing field. We do not possess the
arsenal our "enemies" have and we have no voice in the debate over the
DEFINITION of fraud. They decide.

Why must we be so transparent and hyper accountable when those who
table the legislations are shrouded?

If the government to ODSP recipient relationship was a strip poker
game, our sartorial allowance would be socks and skivvies while our
opponents would be layered in Nunavut snowsuits. We'd barely
(unintended pun) be able to ante up.

Our government isn't fighting poverty. Our government is fighting the
poor.

As for a crackdown creating a surplus for those who really need it
(implying that some of us don't and are living large on our three
figure stipend - man, only a masochist would put himself through the
humiliation and scrutiny of this process without cause) the outcome
would be the exact oposite. They would point to all the ousted
fraudsters and bilkers and declare the program completely
unsustainable. The program would be slammed shut for a two year
"review", benefits would shrink to an even more risible pittance, and
we'd all be forced to move in with our parents.

If I don't buy the full complement of catheters and use the money to
take my grandchilden to the food court I am committing fraud. I am
strangely okay with that. I'm dealing with a system that wants me to
apply a 1964 shelter allowance to my 2011 apartment.

I used to toil on the hill, we routinely wrote-off a boozy lunch to
the tune of a monthly odsp benefit. It seems I was strangely okay with
that too.

And now I have to hand in ANOTHER diet allowance form or go hungry? Oh
the irony.

I'm bald from chemo, weigh under 100lbs, and I'm in renal failure.
Progressive MS has reached the involuntary muscles and I'm a scared
and lonely woman. I do not believe my government owes me a Living but
surely we are owed a dignified death.

Really? A hotline to report welfare fraud? I've picked up the phone to
report child and spousal abuse but I would hesitate to shine a light
on a "welfare abuser" - it's just bad karma, and isn't it a bit over
the top to tell a fraudulent government about fraud.

:-)

Hey. It's good to be here. I am not throwing gauntlets around. I'm
just super sensitive about poking poor people with anonymous sticks.

Yowza. Prednisone munchies. The call of the cookie...

[Uppity Woman]

What it means is to be supportive of those defrauding the system getting caught and punished for it. I have to wonder why anyone would be against that ..... Well, I know why they would ....   Uppity   -------Original Message-------

[justice4odsp]

Uppity,

In an ideal world, this type of support and the investigations would contain more fact.

Also, it would help to see concrete stats as to how many people are getting caught and convicted for fraud.

One more thing, if you read the ODSP Directives, you will see that they're first to launch a criminal investigation and, if you're found not guilty, they are to pursue a civil case against you. The difference is even described in the directives. It says a criminal conviction means Not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. A civil conviction test is basically the balance of probabilities that cheating has been going on. Here is a quote of the relevant information:

11.1 - Recovery of Overpayments

(under the heading) Overpayment Recovery Where Criminal Charges Have Proceeded and There is a Court Decision on the Matter

To determine whether the overpayment is collectible, it will be necessary to carefully review the decision of the court. For example, if a recipient is acquitted without a finding by the court on the merits of the case, the overpayment should be considered to be collectible and dealt with in accordance with the procedures outlined in this directive.

Cases where the recipient is acquitted, and the finding of the court is that fraud has not been proven, will require careful review. An overpayment may still have occurred notwithstanding an acquittal on a fraud charge. There is a different standard of proof which applies to criminal and civil proceedings. In a criminal proceeding, the offence must be proven "beyond a reasonable doubt" and there must be evidence of a deliberate intent to deceive. In a civil proceeding, it is sufficient to establish "on a balance of probabilities" that money was improperly obtained.

Who is the tester and what is the test (what exact kind of proof are they looking for), when determining guilt using the balance of probabilities?  I find this directive to be rather shocking.

justice4odsp

[Michael Bertrand]

I'm all for cracking down on fraud too, but not when you are presumed guilty until proven innocent which is opposite to our judicial system in Ontario and the rest of Canada. Too bad we could not get all ODSP recipients in Ontario to sign a petition demanding equal rights, which we are entitled to under the Canadian Charter of Rights signed by Prime Minister Harper last March at a world leaders conference and file a class action human rights complaint against ODSP and their underhanded tactics. Aren't all Canadians supposed to be treated equally? 

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Uppity Woman

To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Sunday, May 29, 2011 1:26 PM

Subject: Re: [odspfireside: 37088 ]

[Uppity Woman]

I don't feel like we are treated unequally.

Uppity


-------Original Message-------

From: Michael Bertrand
Date: 06/06/2011 2:08:12 PM
To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com

[StarTears]

I'm all for cracking down on fraud too, but not when you are presumed guilty until proven innocent which is opposite to our judicial system in Ontario and the rest of Canada. Too bad we could not get all ODSP recipients in Ontario to sign a petition demanding equal rights, which we are entitled to under the Canadian Charter of Rights signed by Prime Minister Harper last March at a world leaders conference and file a class action human rights complaint against ODSP and their underhanded tactics. Aren't all Canadians supposed to be treated equally? 

michael,

the amount of genuine fraud in the ODSP system is so minimal that if they took all the money and resources used to "find" it there would be enough money for us all to live in dignity.....and then some.

the amount of bureaucratic waste is the problem.  the accusatory look down your nose at people for having issues or diseases that prevent them from having a job or maintaining a stable one is the problem.  not being able to feed ourselves properly to PREVENT health issues is the problem.  trying to live in poverty IS the problem.

star 

[abrowne]

Uppity,

I believe we are.  How many corporations are given the rap for just

being corporations and getting a lot of undeserved tax breaks, even

when a few of them break the law to get them?  Of course, you don't see

all companies tarnished with the Enron, Worldcom, etc. brush, but

every single person on any kind of social assistance is seen as guilty of

some kind of fraud (or just being lazy) until proven otherwise.  I

deal with the consequences of these issues here, and at the extreme

end, people who have been falsely accused of fraud (and they were

cleared) still ended up killing themselves.  This has to stop.

Angela

---

From: Uppity Woman <uppity...@gmail.com>
To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Mon, June 6, 2011 3:26:26 PM
Subject: Re: [odspfireside: 37352 ]

[StarTears]

This has to stop.

Angela

I don't feel like we are treated unequally.

i think arguing points with uppity needs to stop.  playing with devil's advocate for so long [whether that is her intention or she REALLY is just on the opposing side of absolutely EVERYTHING that our social program life entails] is setting people off in that same manner.

this is getting beyond the point of reason now. 

star

[Bill Higgs]

Yep a couple of years ago an odsp recipeitns I personally know was informed he had a 170 dollar overpayment. Get this,,  From 17 years earlier when he had been temporarily on welfare in a differnet county.

 

Just how many thousands of dollars were wasted "sleuthing" down this huge overpayment LOL

 

Needless to say he never pursued trying to fight it. Who has their records from 17 years earlier, or for that matter can remember that far back.

 

Bill

[Uppity Woman]

I have just as much right to voice my opinion as you do, as long as I am not breaking group rules. Just because I don't feel the same way you do about ODSP does not mean I have to be silent.   Uppity     -------Original Message-------

From: StarTears Date: 06/06/2011 8:06:32 PM To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com

Subject: Re: [odspfireside: 37363 ]

[justice4odsp]

Uppity is lucky. She's happy living alone, has rides when she needs it, and is not bothered by the service providers.

She likely has learned the hard way that, if you keep your mouth shut and be satisfied with staying home and out of their hair, she will live in peace

[Chris Carey]

Uppity,

None of our stories have moved you to think differently? How can you say we're treated equally given what you read here? I used to think so, but that was before I tried to find employment or to return school. There are few support services or accommodations available.

I couldn't even qualify for a general bursary. Kids who drive around campus in luxury vehicles get these bursaries (literally). I was denied b/c I still have part of an osap loan unpaid. I can't afford to pay the outstanding balance because I receive $4.90 an hour.

You would say, get a job! I'm trying. I've been trying since last fall. So, if you have the answers, please tell me what I should do that I haven't done already.

Chris

[abrowne]

Chris,

Uppity has the right to think how s/he wants.

 

Not all slaves in the plantations were unhappy, and

a few actually did like their masters as not all of

them were unkind.

 

But Uppity and others on here have to know that

most people are not happy, and not all of our

experiences were clean and trouble free.

 

I, for one, will continue to fight for our rights, as I

know most people here want to see that.

Angela

---

From: Chris Carey <chris...@rocketmail.com>
To: "odspfi...@googlegroups.com" <odspfi...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Mon, June 6, 2011 11:37:28 PM
Subject: Re: [odspfireside: 37377 ]