- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Ending all the fraud..
Posted on 5/5/26 at 8:03 pm
Posted on 5/5/26 at 8:03 pm
Why does this seem to be on the federal govt to root this out?
Why are we not incentivizing the states themselves, private attorneys in each state, and even civil service workers who work in these govt program offices? Maybe I'm oversimplifying things, and maybe it's just me, but I'd gladly reward attorneys and whistleblowers with a percentage of what a fraudster was stealing. Something along the lines of....
For the attorneys, let's say 5% of the total stolen over the last year, per perp. And an additional percent for each year the fraudster is sentenced. Would this require some kind of class action lawsuit? Can an attorney just start digging into peoples business like that?
For the civil workers, for each person turned in and gets busted, 3%-5% of what they stole over the last year.
For the states, I don't know how you'd do it. Because they seem already incentivized to ignore the issue.
I have a feeling, and admittedly I'm pulling these numbers out my arse, that about 70% of the fraud is probably "legal", while the other 30% is flat out theft. So that means the programs themselves, and the qualifiers to draw money from them, need to change.
Why are we not incentivizing the states themselves, private attorneys in each state, and even civil service workers who work in these govt program offices? Maybe I'm oversimplifying things, and maybe it's just me, but I'd gladly reward attorneys and whistleblowers with a percentage of what a fraudster was stealing. Something along the lines of....
For the attorneys, let's say 5% of the total stolen over the last year, per perp. And an additional percent for each year the fraudster is sentenced. Would this require some kind of class action lawsuit? Can an attorney just start digging into peoples business like that?
For the civil workers, for each person turned in and gets busted, 3%-5% of what they stole over the last year.
For the states, I don't know how you'd do it. Because they seem already incentivized to ignore the issue.
I have a feeling, and admittedly I'm pulling these numbers out my arse, that about 70% of the fraud is probably "legal", while the other 30% is flat out theft. So that means the programs themselves, and the qualifiers to draw money from them, need to change.
8
Posted on 5/5/26 at 8:07 pm to deuceiswild
Agreed but They need to broaden the qui tam cause of action to get more involvement from the private sector.
Posted on 5/5/26 at 8:23 pm to deuceiswild
In college I worked for a construction company. If anyone found a way to save money on a build they made a proposal and if the architect approved the worker got to keep half the money saved. Elections and plumbers were getting a few thousand dollars extra a few times per year.
The federal government could hire a few thousand guys to find fraud and their salary can be half of what they find.
Win/Win.
The federal government could hire a few thousand guys to find fraud and their salary can be half of what they find.
Win/Win.
Posted on 5/5/26 at 8:33 pm to deuceiswild
I beleive all the fraud in this country might be enough to balance the budget....LOL!
It is staggering, and the news is showing that migrants really know how to cheat the system.
It is staggering, and the news is showing that migrants really know how to cheat the system.
Posted on 5/5/26 at 8:41 pm to LazloHollyfeld
What does that mean?
Posted on 5/5/26 at 8:43 pm to oldskule
Somalis are the best thing to happen to Mexicans since Obama.
Not saying Somalis are the only ones. But for some reason they piss me off more. Not afraid to admit it either. They just don't belong here.
Not saying Somalis are the only ones. But for some reason they piss me off more. Not afraid to admit it either. They just don't belong here.
Posted on 5/5/26 at 8:57 pm to deuceiswild
quote:
Why are we not incentivizing the states themselves, private attorneys in each state,
We actually are. Its call the False Claims Act of 1863. you can file suit against parties defrauding the government, serve the government and they may take over the case or allow you to proceed. Either way you would be entitled to 16-30% of what is recovered.
Posted on 5/5/26 at 9:05 pm to cajunandy
Will need to research this. What is the extent of this? Could I file for a look at CATS or COLA?
Posted on 5/5/26 at 9:10 pm to cajunandy
Interesting... got this from grok:
The original 1863 version was strong but had some weaknesses. It was significantly updated in 1986 (and again later) to make it even more effective. Today, the modern False Claims Act is one of the government’s most powerful tools against fraud in areas like:
• Defense contracting
• Medicare and Medicaid billing
• Pharmaceutical companies
• Research grants
• Any company doing business with the federal government
In short: The 1863 False Claims Act said, “If you’re cheating the government, anyone who knows about it can sue you for us — and they’ll get a big cut of the money we recover.” It was a clever, practical way to protect taxpayer money during a national crisis.
There was more, but this sums it up pretty well.
Seems to me this law needs to be advertised of its existence. Of course, if a citizen does this in the wrong community, their life is at serious risk.
The original 1863 version was strong but had some weaknesses. It was significantly updated in 1986 (and again later) to make it even more effective. Today, the modern False Claims Act is one of the government’s most powerful tools against fraud in areas like:
• Defense contracting
• Medicare and Medicaid billing
• Pharmaceutical companies
• Research grants
• Any company doing business with the federal government
In short: The 1863 False Claims Act said, “If you’re cheating the government, anyone who knows about it can sue you for us — and they’ll get a big cut of the money we recover.” It was a clever, practical way to protect taxpayer money during a national crisis.
There was more, but this sums it up pretty well.
Seems to me this law needs to be advertised of its existence. Of course, if a citizen does this in the wrong community, their life is at serious risk.
Posted on 5/5/26 at 9:14 pm to deuceiswild
I think the corruption is so deeply entrenched with tentacles extending everywhere, nobody wants to fight the system. The whole system is corrupt. And always has been.
Posted on 5/5/26 at 9:19 pm to how333
Agreed. It's depressing. A new story every week, or even every day.
There are probably political kickbacks we haven't heard much about yet.... likely funneled and filtered through several totally legit organizations first, of course.
There are probably political kickbacks we haven't heard much about yet.... likely funneled and filtered through several totally legit organizations first, of course.
Posted on 5/5/26 at 10:07 pm to deuceiswild
Evan Raiklin.
He says it will be at the county level.
He says it will be at the county level.
Posted on 5/5/26 at 10:11 pm to deuceiswild
I’m convinced fraud could be 100% of our deficit.
Posted on 5/5/26 at 10:23 pm to deuceiswild
quote:
The original 1863 version was strong but had some weaknesses. It was significantly updated in 1986 (and again later) to make it even more effective. Today, the modern False Claims Act is one of the government’s most powerful tools against fraud in areas like:
Studied this in Compliance Law back in the day. One of the most egregious cases we looked at was the one with Columbia/HCA where Rick Scott stole billions. Still don’t know how he’s not in jail.
FCA, AKS, FCPA, were all fun cases to read.
Posted on 5/5/26 at 10:35 pm to CDawson
quote:
I’m convinced fraud could be 100% of our deficit.
Based on what?
Posted on 5/5/26 at 10:38 pm to oldskule
quote:
I beleive all the fraud in this country might be enough to balance the budget
Again, based on what?
That number is generally around $1.7 trillion.
Do you have any idea how gigantic that number is?
That's almost twice the annual military budget.
There's no way there's anywhere near that much fraud.
Posted on 5/5/26 at 10:42 pm to wackatimesthree
Looking at MN and CA for starters. On a smaller scale see New Orleans and Jackson, MS
Posted on 5/6/26 at 8:24 am to wackatimesthree
quote:
There's no way there's anywhere near that much fraud.
I agree with you.
But I don't understand your point. Is it simply for accuracy? If so, then it's a fair point.
But I think we can all agree that the amount of fraud is HUGE and actually would put a noticeable dent in the deficit, and possibly, in time, the debt too, if the issue is solved and some policies are changed.
Posted on 5/6/26 at 8:25 am to dovehunter
quote:
Looking at MN and CA for starters.
Give me the numbers.
I assume when you say that you mean, "They found X number of dollars of fraud in Minnesota and Y number of dollars of fraud in California. If you assume every state has that level of fraud and extrapolate it out, it comes to $1.7 Trillion dollars, roughly the size of the annual deficit."
So what's the math?
Let's take Minnesota. They know about roughly $300 million in fraud and allege another $10 billion. That number is likely to be too high, rather than too low. It's a quite generous estimate.
I asked AI to extrapolate that out given Minnesota's size relative to other states and assuming every state has that level of fraud (and assuming that the $10 billion number ends up being accurate) it came up with $640 billion.
A big number, sure, and we need to recover it. But we're still over a trillion short every year even if we do.
This post was edited on 5/6/26 at 9:42 am
Posted on 5/6/26 at 8:42 am to wackatimesthree
I doubt it's even close to the national debt but it's multi billions. The good that could be done with that money would stimulate the economy to the point that we could run a surplus.
Just pave the damn roads, build the bridges, improve our infrastructure, lower taxes.
Just pave the damn roads, build the bridges, improve our infrastructure, lower taxes.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News