Pear pimples and hairy fishnuts?
Thanks for the heads-up on the coupons, folks - I am continually amazed at the resources to which I am privy as a member of the SDMB community! And for a mere $5!
I think it is. One of the issues I research is welfare and Medicaid fraud/abuse. This fits the bill perfectly. Sounds like the worker was out of line to suggest a recipient use this loophole to receive benefits after she is no longer eligible.
This thread is pitting Babies R Us. As someone who is often buying baby shower gifts, it interested me. The subject turned to formula, then someone made a comment about WIC eligibility that I found questionable, and I commented. I don’t get your analogy. I don’t hate Babies R Us, or formula or WIC. I do hate stores ripping people off, and that was my interest. What exactly is it that I said that is offensive to you? It sounded to me like someone was taking advantage of a loophole and laughing about it. Maybe they could come back into the thread and clear that up if it isn’t the case. But surely you’re not advocating utilizing WIC if your income goes up and you no longer meet the eligibility criteria, do you? 
give me a break. The thread pits Babies R Us. You hate children. You came in here because of your avid stance against ‘crotch apples’ and looked for something to get offended about. Don’t try and disguise it as anything else.
One more thought, jarbaby. I think you are being unfair to me. I am not sure what you are trying to imply that I “hate,” but it certainly isn’t kids or mommies or whatever you are trying to imply. That’s just silly. Geez.
Oh and another point. Here in the pit, people often start/read threads about things they hate…that’s part of the point of the pit. If you really hated fish, and there was a fish thread in the pit, I bet you’d be tempted to add your opinion to the pitting.
Just a thought.
I’m being unfair to you, but claiming Slvrfire is committing welfare fraud and all but wishing forced sterilization on her is hunky dory.
How’s the air up on the high horse? Because the shit stinks.
What the fuck are you talking about??? Please show me where I said I “hate children.” I most certainly don’t hate children. You are a vicious person to say that. And I don’t know what it means, but I have never used, much less heard of, the term “crotch apples.”
Shit, you think I don’t like kids? I spent a significant amount of time at the last few Dopefests I went to playing with other people’s kids. Just ask norinew, OpalCat, MsRobyn…heck I even played with Ginger’s little boy. He’s a lot of fun! All of the aforementioned mothers have really cool kids and I love seeing them.
Seriously, I am sorry if I gave you the wrong impression in the past, but you are wrong.
You may want to rethink what you said in the “MY Employer’s Idea of MAternity Leave” thread then. I think it was something about “don’t expect me to care about your kids” and how six weeks was too long for maternity leave.
If I misread those loving thoughts, please let me know.
Oh my, you have seriously misunderstood. I certainly didn’t “wish forced sterilization.” I don’t know where you got that.
You should know; you’re the one acting all high and mighty, like you know what I think.
BY THE WAY, I did a little research. WIC is a federal program and the rules affect all 50 states. From the Virginia WIC rules & regulations document:
So basically, if you are found to have exceeded the income limit within your certification period (a year) then you are no longer qualified and must return future checks. If, knowing this, you continue to utilize WIC benefits, you are committing fraud.
What you ‘think’ isn’t what the law states.
Take a look back at that thread. I wasn’t among the “six weeks was too long for maternity leave” camp. I was talking about another issue that was brought up in that thread. Basically I was ranting about people who take advantage of the charity of society by being irresponsible. I’m sure you don’t advocate being irresponsible, do you?
See the excerpt from VA law above. If that isn’t clear enough for you, I can find additional cites. Or if you can find evidence to the contrary, please show me. Also, as I mentioned before, I am a legislative analyst (that is, one who studies and analyzes laws from all 50 states and federal legislation) and I specialize in health care issue, a subset of which is Medicaid and welfare fraud. So I do know what I am talking about. No need to be snarky with me.
You seemed to miss the first one:
The eligibility status (e.g., financial/nutritional) of a participant does not need to be reevaluated
during the certification period.
And “If it comes to the attention of…” suggests to me that if they HAPPEN to find out that income has changed, then they have to continue it. Nowhere in that document does it say that a person is obligated to bring such changes to the attention of the program, nor does it indicate that failure to do so would be a fraud. It says if it comes to their attention, they have to act on it, and have to disqualify the family.
Sorry, that should be DIScontinue, not continue.
How is that sentence snarky? If I meant to be snarky I would have been. I was merely stating that you read it wrong. TellMeI’mNotCrazy clarifies it below, as I should have.
I guess we’re reading it differently.
Looking though these documents:
Program Abuse and Sanctions
Collection of Improperly Issued Benefits/Claims against Participants
“Any deliberate misrepresentation of income, name, residence, family size, medical data, or date of birth to obtain WIC benefits” is listed as a program abuse. If you know you are making more than the eligibilty limit and continue to use these benefits, then that would be a misrepresentation. At the very least it would be a really low-down dirty thing to do. Is anyone here actually saying that it is totally morally and ethically OK to take benefits after you have raised your income level past the eligibility level point? Or is the mommy brigade just trying to give me a hard time? 
I don’t think I read it wrong. I read laws for a living and this statment seems pretty clear to me:
The certification period vary by your circumstances, see here: http://www.vahealth.org/wic/CRT%2007.0.pdf
OK, so judging from the language in the rule, if during these periods, if your income changes, you should be disqualified. But of course for this to happen, it would need to “come to the attention of the Local Agency.” That is why you would want to be hush-hush about it and not inform them of the change, right? And it wouldn’t be possible for them to do income checks weekly, now would it? So it’d theoretically be easy to get away with this. That is the point. That wouldn’t be right. Just because you don’t get caught doesn’t mean you didn’t do anything wrong. You are morally and ethically obligated to inform the agency of your income change, because you should know that it isn’t right to contine to receive benefits if you are no longer eligible. Not informing the agency and continuing to get benefits is an error of admission. It’s the same concept that if your husband is cheating on you, it’s still lying, whether or not you specifically asked “are you cheating on me?” The cheating hubby might say, “well you never asked!” But that is part of the deal, the contract; it’s expected for you to be forthright whether or not you are specifically asked the question.
You use the words ‘should’ and ‘morally’ and ‘ethically’. Nowhere do you say legally. I am not saying ‘it wouldn’t be right’, I’m saying ‘it would be legal’.
It would? Do you have a cite? Reading through the regulations, I have found several rules to back up my position that it is not allowable (i.e. not legal). I quoted the rules and provided links. What more do I need to do? Did you find anything to the contrary?
Let me try to simplify it for you. There are eligibility limits. If you fall below the income limit, you qualify for the program; if you exceed them, you don’t. Very simple. Hiding the fact that you no longer qualify and continuing to collect benefits is fraud. It’s exactly the same concept as Medicaid fraud. Your butt would be in serious trouble if you did this on Medicaid.
It seems your point is that you could do it as long as the agency didn’t find out. But that doesn’t make it legal. Not getting caught does not equal legal.
Here’s an analogy: You commit a theft, but you don’t get caught, and you don’t turn yourself into the police. Does that make the theft legal? Of course not.
How is this any different?
One last question, if you were on WIC, would you personally continue to utilize the benefits if your income exceeded the eligibility limit?
This isn’t about me. This is about an attack you made on another poster who is on WIC, and who posted what her WIC worker told her to be the law.
Oh, so what one poster said that her worker told her = gospel, while the links I provided you with, plus several logical explanations = lies, damned lies?
Sigh. OK you convinced me. You’re right. It’s TOTALLY LEGAL to continue to receive benefits if you rise above the eligibility levels! That makes tons of sense. Not. :dubious:
I am getting bored with trying to convince you that the sky is blue, though, because it isn’t even what the thread is about. But seriously, though, do you really believe that is LEGAL? Seriously??? Based just on what Silver Fire said? And ignoring my cites?? And ignoring common sense?
I may just do a little more rooting around tomorrow to find something with a little more simplistic and irrefutible language, if I can find the time.