Michigan officials disagree on strain caused by removal of thousands from welfare rolls
LANSING - There has been no major fallout after thousands of Michigan families were recently removed from the welfare rolls, the director of the Department of Human Services testified today.
Michigan DHS Director Maura Corrigan and her alter ego The Queen of Child Welfare Fraud (a.k.a. "Queen Gamer") |
"We've been looking at that," Corrigan said. "It's a dog that didn't bite, as far as we're concerned."
But Gilda Jacobs, president and CEO of the Michigan League for Human Services, which opposed the welfare cuts, said Corrigan's information is inconsistent with what she is hearing.
"It is way too early to get some hard data," Jacobs told the Free Press. But she said at least two agencies she's heard from are experiencing increased demands for food and other assistance.
The department projected more than 11,000 Michigan families would lose their cash assistance late last year after the state set a new four-year cap on receiving the benefits. Officials previously used a five-year federal limit, but said some families had received benefits for 10 years or longer, due to exceptions.
Asked if she is monitoring what happens to heads of households and their children after the benefits are cut off, Corrigan said her department is monitoring.
TRANSLATION: Child Protective Services has not submitted total removals for the month of March.
About 1,000 families are taking advantage of a program offered through her department and the Michigan State Housing Development Authority under which they can receive another six months of housing assistance as long as they show they are in a work program or have a job, Corrigan said.
Thousands of others rejected offers of that assistance and Corrigan said she believes a significant number of those did not want to come forward because they are involved in the "underground economy."
"We're at the epicenter of the entitlement culture," Corrigan testified.
"This is the vulnerable against the gamers. We have a fair number of people gaming the system. The gamers take away resources from the truly vulnerable."
Stop. Hold that thought.
"Gamers". I have heard that term used before. Actually, I know that term well. I had previously attributed Madame Corrigan with authorship and may now state that I was correct.Michigan "Health Insurance Claims Assessment Act of 2011" Public Act 142 of 2011.
Signed by Gov. Rick Snyder on February 20, 2011.
Introduced by Sen. Roger Kahn (R) on April 27, 2011, to repeal a 6 percent use tax on medical services health care providers, and replace it with a 1 percent tax on health insurance claims. These taxes are designed to “game” the federal Medicaid system in ways that result in higher federal payments to Michigan’s medical welfare system. This bill creates the new tax.
Continue reading.
Jacobs said Corrigan and her department should not be looking at the system through a lens that assumes widespread cheating "as opposed to how can we help people who are struggling in an economy that is just starting to recover."How about focusing on Medicaid fraud in child welfare? How about antitrust violations of child placing agency contracts? Perhaps, Madame Corrigan, if you spent a few moments admitting that fraud flourishes throughout your Department in its entire cost reimbursements to the feds, you may find out that there are hundreds of millions being gamed under your leadership.
Madame Corrigan, how dare you attribute the financial woes of the state on a handful of people who are struggling to make it. How much are we really looking at? A million? Let me show you where the big Medicaid bucks are being gamed.
What is the difference between the welfare gamers and Medicaid gamers? I am going to answer this. A welfare gamer is a person who trying to survive off state assistance of 200 percent below the poverty level, whereas, a Medicaid gamer is how your Department scams the feds through taxes to make up for the hundreds of millions in Medicaid fraud penalties you have to pay back?
Did I get that correct, Madame Corrigan?
No comments:
Post a Comment