Aviation Medical "Fraud"

I wasn't aware that medical disability information was a matter of
public record; interesting.

Who said it was? There's nothing to stop two
federal agencies from comparing databases, as
long as they don't disclose the information in
the databases to the public.

I'm *not* in favor of such fishing expeditions,
but just the same, the government has a long
history of doing them.

Just curious: Why would you be *against* the gummint comparing notes?

I, for one, am amazed and thrilled that the bureacrats actually
bothered to check something, for a change. The fact that We the
People are paying monthly "diability" stipends to physically-fit
pilots is a scandal that should rock the Social Security
administration -- not the FAA.

Unfortunately we pilots are the easier target to hit.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
oups.com...

I, for one, am amazed and thrilled that the bureacrats actually
bothered to check something, for a change. The fact that We the
People are paying monthly "diability" stipends to physically-fit
pilots is a scandal that should rock the Social Security
administration -- not the FAA.

Unfortunately we pilots are the easier target to hit.

Correct Jay. And that should be the point hammered home by AOPA and every
aviation supporter addressing this issue. The majority of these cases are
probably completely physically fit individuals who are scamming SSA not the
FAA.

Howard

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
oups.com...
I wasn't aware that medical disability information was a matter of
public record; interesting.

Who said it was? There's nothing to stop two
federal agencies from comparing databases, as
long as they don't disclose the information in
the databases to the public.

I'm *not* in favor of such fishing expeditions,
but just the same, the government has a long
history of doing them.

Just curious: Why would you be *against* the gummint comparing notes?

The present example comes to mind as plenty of reason to be very wary. The
usual dictum is "garbage in, garbage out." We seldom mention the
transformation process in between. It's true that you can't make good
information out of bad (GIGO). It's equally true that you can take perfectly
good information and produce pure garbage, as they did in this case. 40 in
40000 hardly qualifies as "widespread abuse."

I, for one, am amazed and thrilled that the bureacrats actually
bothered to check something, for a change.

Oversight is good. Weeding out abuse is good. Promulgating it into law and
yet more layers of bureaucracy is not good. We don't need more laws. We
don't need more bureaucrats. In fact, bureacrats == abuse from my point of
view.