My buddy's leg is like that for the same reason and goes through the exact same process. Still no leg.

The cost of this and thousands of other pointless assessments by qualified medical professionals probably costs more than people receive in benefits in the first place let alone the cost of a handful of cases of actual fraud.

Ok, but these have to be artificial hurdles - a yearly notarized doctors note?

There sure must be lots of people faking having no eyes.

/s

This sounds silly, but could you fill your opiate prescription and just toss the pills? Maybe you can find a doctor willing to record your ongoing treatment as whatever works for you.

A WITCH!!!

All these government benefits programs are ready to deny 100 valid people benefits if it means they stop one instance of fraud.

That's my criticism of conservatives obsessing and crusading over welfare fraud. Sure, fraud happens, what system is fool proof? But conservatives make it as though it is prevalent when statistics show that it's not (I don't know about the US but in UK welfare fraud is statistically not a big of an issue as it is made out to be). I met a guy who is nice and intelligent, and a conservative based from the views he espoused during the conversation, but he obsess over welfare fraud like many conservatives. Just because he personally saw few instances of fraud, he makes it as though it is a pervasive issue.

Just a reminder, we spend more preventing welfare fraud than we save by preventing fraud. We could just give cash away on the honor system to everyone who asks for it, and we would save money.

With our new presidential elect, we might not need to pay them benefits anymore. He could just get rid of them! /s

I'm sorry but a system of currency of some sort is kind of a must in the modern world.

I can't reasonably know enough people who I could help do something so that I could get a phone, an e-bike, all the foods that I enjoy, etc etc etc.

"Abolish money" is a sort of naive thing to say, really. Even in Star Trek, they don't really explain it, because people can't even imagine a society really working truly without any currency, because of the problems it eventually leads to. Like even in Star Trek, Picard owns a huge vineyard and has people working there. Why? I'm sure most of the goods are going to be shared without making profit off of them or anything, but still, it just doesn't really make sense. And they've owned that vineyard for centuries.

Honestly just the systems we have, if we take basically the best of all the systems around the world and take the good and leave the bad and assume very little corruption of non-significant levels and we assume that we actually tax the wealthy properly, I think we could have the world looking radically different in a matter of few decades. I don't think it's easy for any humans (including me) to even fathom the effect it would have if people honestly didn't take as much as they wanted, but as much as they needed, and perhaps a little on top.

I know of a couple of very fair bosses here in the Nordics who actually pay their employees very well and while they make a bit more as the owner of the company, not really significantly more. I don't believe even double, let alone triple, whereas usually tens or hundreds of times more than the average worker. Although these aren't large companies I'm talking about.

I'm just saying there's no need to "abolish money". Money is fine, it's just being hoarded away from everyone who actually need it and would actually use it.

How about if we start with "Abolish billionaires" first, we'll see about how realistic it is about the whole "abolish money entirely" later on, yeah?

Tangentially related video:

Putting Dole Up To £1K A Week | Kevin Bridges: A Whole Different Story

I'm sure the presidential office holds a lot of power but I'm not sure it reaches as far as the UK benefit system.

That's been a cruel mess far longer than Clinton did anything to you.