Hacker News Reader

Comment by stickfigure | Hacker News Reader

While the optics aren't great, I think this is the kind of thing we just have to accept as a society without single-payer healthcare. There's a huge amount of worker's comp fraud. Without some pushback in the system, there would be a lot more. And worker's comp insurance is already very expensive (at least, here in CA).

Also: We're getting just one side of the story here.

View on HN

For what it's worth, this happens where there's single payer health care too:

https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2014/06/16/workplace_safety...

For context, WSIB is a government agency here in Ontario:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workplace_Safety_%26_Insuran...

Hiring PIs to prevent workers' comp fraud seems like a very normal and expected thing to do.

It seems like the ones in this case might have overstepped their bounds, though.

Canada really doesn't have a single-payer system though. If you're injured at work you'll receive far better care than if you sustain the same injuries at home.

What this have to do with single-payer? Under single-payer system, there would not be worker comp fraud? Or it won't be investigated, because who cares, it's other people's tax money? I am not sure what your point was here. As long as disability/worker comp fraud happens (and it happens, a lot), it would be investigated. And that's a good thing, because alternative is just common funds (either employer's or taxpayer's) raided by fraudsters without any risk whatsoever. Such system can never be viable.

Why do you think single payer would stop us from preventing fraud? Btw this is done in single payer countries as well.

Even the government investigates disability fraud.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/robinseatonjefferson/2018/09/27...

Can you cite your claim that there is a huge amount of worker's comp fraud? I'd like to see the data. Specifically the amount of claims that end up fradulent.

You're right to push back on this. My wife works in the California system. As with anything, fraud does exist throughout it -- including employers, doctors, and law firms...not just applicants. However if you looked at the legitimately injured who were poorly treated and compared it with the rare ones who faked it, you would probably be astonished.

But no I have not data.

The reason why I push back against claims like this is usually because the evidence is either all anecdotal or the data proves the opposite

For example, there are claims that welfare fraud is widespread, yet the data seems to prove the opposite from what I've read. We should not be making policy nor allow companies to invade our privacy over unsubstantial amounts of fraudulent behavior. All that does is encourage companies to go deeper and deeper into paranoid behavior.

I agree, and I would go further: I think the idea that any human system can occur without fraud is ridiculous. People who claim to believe that systems should exist fraud-free often want to demolish those systems for other reasons.

Simply googling "workers comp fraud statistics", the first hit says 1-2% of all claims are fraudulent.

You can detect the disease by looking for the antibodies. As the top commenter (former examiner) pointed out, it's common for insurers to hire private detectives to investigate claims. That's a large expense that they wouldn't undertake without a good economic reason.

First off, I am tired of people using the 'just Google it' argument. That is not a replacement for citations when someone asks you to see data and I insist that you and anyone using that argument stop. Google tailors searches based on the user, location etc and without actual citations it is incredibly difficult to assess the credibility of one's argument. If you had the time to Google your own claim, then you had the opportunity to actually cite them in your response.

And second, 1-2% is such a low amount according to your claims that I absolutely do not believe it warrents invading someone's privacy and harassing them, full stop.

I thought the general level of workers comp fraud was well understood, and it doesn't take much googling to find it.

It sounds like the point of controversy is not sourcing, but the 1-2% figure.

That 1-2% figure is the level of fraud given the current amount of privacy invasion and harassment, including the story as posted. Less harassment, more fraud; more harassment, less fraud. "full stop"

If you think 1-2% is insignificant, I don't know what to say. By comparison, 0.037% of card-present transactions were fraudulent in 2012. That number was alarming enough it inspired switching all of our (USA) infrastructure to a chip-based system, and even that is generally not thought adequate. 1-2% is a large amount of fraud. If you have that amount of fraud on your merchant account, banks will generally shut you down.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com