Talk:2010 Medicaid fraud

Error in article title

I wanted to propose this before unilaterlaly making the change. Isn't this whole article describing a Medicare Fraud ring? All of the source documents phrase it that way. It's not clear to me that any theft involved Medicaid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.6.147.140 (talk) 23:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Reference to Historic Crimes

Historic crimes unrelated to this crime group and these individuals do not have a place in this article as they are not relevant to the specific events described. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.178.189.242 (talk) 21:18, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I see you have been deleting the sections without explaining and looks like they were restored as explained in the summaries. Do not delete the section about previous crimes. This is not about being "historic". The section about previous crimes explains why and how certain organized groups have been defrauding the same industry and in the same states such as California. What part do you not understand? If you undo again, I will be forced to report you. Please discuss before any removal of big parts of text.  Anastasia Bukhantseva  05:28, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I explained each of my edits. Please expand on your idea of "certain organized groups" being linked to this event. I don't see a link to the group that this article is about to the historic section. This fraud was national and not only in California. You should discuss your points rather than threaten to report me, although you are free to do that as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.231.212.133 (talk) 18:15, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

IP, please do not remove the project tag. This and previous crimes against healthcare program took place in California with most of the apprehended from California. By certain organized crime groups I mean members of the same ethnic community which continue defrauding US government through their multimillion scams in healthcare. How else should I explain?  Anastasia Bukhantseva  18:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

The fraud took place across the United States. Furthermore, its not relevant to any state specific knowledge someone would seek. You are implying that being of a certain ethnicity ties you to crimes committed by individuals of that ethnicity. That is blatantly prejudiced thinking and has no place on these pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.231.212.133 (talk) 19:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Anastasia, your reasoning defies all logic. You might as well say that we should include other individuals of Jewish descent who participated in Ponzi schemes or defrauded others on the Bernie Madoff article - which is absolutely ridiculous. The continued insertion of the same text by numerous editors only leads one to believe that there are more nefarious motives behind these edits. What is the relevance here?--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 19:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Sir, I am not looking at linking the ethnicity to Armenian criminal activity in the United States. In that case, I would have made additions linking the article to articles such as Armenian Power or articles on individuals such as Jack Kevorkian, Mourad Topalian and others of Armenian descent. The section that has been removed for several days is relevant because it states the criminal acts of the same content which is defrauding the government healthcare programs and states that they were done by the representatives of the same ethnic community which are Armenians. This is a repetitive pattern and therefore makes sense to be included in the article.  Anastasia Bukhantseva  03:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

You state that the article is tied to past events because the events described "were done by the representatives of the same ethnic community". First, the criminals do not represent any ethnic community. They were not elected, they are not community leaders, and they are not notable in the community. They are not representatives but rather members of a community. Second, you have stated that the link to past crimes is the criminals' ethnicity. This alone is not a basis for tying this article to historic crimes. If, for example, you could show that these criminals or their organization had committed similar crimes in the past, then I could see an argument for mentioning those crimes in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.178.189.242 (talk) 17:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

That is the point. These individuals who robbed the healthcare programs follow the same pattern members of their community have been in the past, i.e. there is a continuing tendency among Armenian immigrants to get into healthcare fraud and scams. This is like various Nigerian con artists who do internet scams and identity thefts who follow the same pattern for several years. The section has nothing to do with Armenian ethnicity directly. It just mentions the pattern among the Armenian criminal activity in the United States. You're trying to get rid of the section so much as if you represent those specific individuals defrauding the Medi-Cal in 1999.  Anastasia Bukhantseva  01:51, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry but do not the above comments by Anastasia strike someone as a little...racist? I'm surprised that the conversation has even been allowed to go on for this long. The presence of some common sense administrators would be highly appreciated at this point.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 02:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Mister, I understand you want to deviate from discussion, but read the statements again. There is not anything near racism. Some Armenian immigrants found a way to make easy money, they did, got caught in 1999, some other Armenian immigrants found the same way to make easy money and they got caught in 2006. Now some more Armenians found the same way to make easy money and they got caught in 2010. The pattern repeats itself and seems will keep repeating.  Anastasia Bukhantseva  03:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Marshall Bagramyan, the references to past also relate to a similar crime, which is defrauding Medicare or MediCal system. Whether the criminal group is ethnic Armenian or not may not be relevant for the essence of committed crime, i.e. stealing from elders' health insurance. Yet at the same time, it is quite relevant that both related crimes were practiced by criminal groups emanating from the same community, so this fact is very relevant information. I am not sure why this is racist, it is a fact relevant to investigation. To claim that 2010 Medicare Fraud has no connection to 1 billion dollar fraud against Medi-Cal system by criminal group from the same background is hiding valuable information from the reader for no real purpose. Atabəy (talk) 07:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Marshal about the need for administration here. I've tried to make simple, coherent arguments but it seems that Anastasia and Atabəy are unable to comprehend even the most basic concepts. Their biased point of view is made clear by their repeated insistence that crime is inherent to a particular ethnic group. Anastasia claims that their is a "tendency among Armenian immigrants to get into healthcare fraud and scams". This is an absurd claim as there are over 1 million ethnic Armenians in the United States and only a handful have committed such crimes. If you cannot comprehend this, then please do not waste your time and others' time as you will not succeed in your accomplishing your hateful agenda.

And where do you see any reference to "1 million ethnic Armenians in the United States"? The section was just highlighting the previous cases of involvement of Armenian criminals defrauding the same industry and ironically, the same programs. That is why it deserves to be noted. If you can't comprehend the basic logic of one group from the same community commiting a crime and other groups commiting the same type of crime again and again, and hence being mentioned as historical background, I don't know what to tell ya.  Anastasia Bukhantseva  04:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Unidentified IP, you are taking the topic into irrelevant and conflicting WP:POV direction. This page topic has to do with a specific type of crime, health care system fraud, and some Armenian-American groups happen to be involved in them. That is a fact, several news agencies affirm that the criminal group is Armenian and was even led by individuals who are citizens of Armenia. I don't see what your arguments have to do with essence of the article. No one says that all Armenians or Armenian-Americans are guilty of this crime. Only official published information is presented. Atabəy (talk) 05:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment on Appropriateness of Section about Historic Crimes

Please comment, taking into account the discussion thus far, regarding adding a section in the article referring to historic crimes committed by Americans of Armenian ethnicity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.231.212.133 (talk)

• It would be inappropriate synthesis, in my opinion. This article is about one particular case of healthcare fraud perpetrated by one particular group of criminals. Content about the topic of healthcare fraud perpetrated by Armenian Americans belongs in an article about that topic, assuming that the topic is, in fact, recognized by reliable sources. Unless reliable sources explicitly identify a more general connection between healthcare fraud and Armenian-American criminal activity (not just that Armenian American criminals—like criminals of any other group—have, on more than one occasion, engaged in healthcare fraud), then it would be original synthesis on our part to suggest that a connection exists. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 00:33, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
• Synthesis to include it without a specific mention in a reliable source to make the connection. Medicare fraud is a far too common event, I don't think it's tied to a single ethnic group. If there's a specific tie made between this case and previous cases, made in a RS, it might be relevant and make sense to include it. There would need to be more than a passing mention though. That said, looks like there's been low level edit-war here. More talk, less reverts! Ravensfire (talk) 01:12, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

  So, in your opinion, how expansive should the mentioning about the historic background of Armenian criminals defrauding the government be? After all, the information is sourced.  Anastasia Bukhantseva  03:56, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

  Here? If it's the same people (not the same group), that's relevant to this case. "Person A has been accused of doing this. In 1923, person A was convincted of ABC for a similar scheme." If person A was just accused of doing something, it shouldn't be in the article. That's WP:UNDUE. If there's an article on the specific organized crime group, a section talking about various cases of medicare fraud might be more acceptable, but keeping the information at a higher level and linking to the more detail level. "Group ABC was investigated in 1923 for medicare fraud (link to article), which resulted in PDQ. In 2010, members of the group were again investigated for medicare fraud (link to article)." Ravensfire (talk) 14:46, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

  In general you're right. The problem is this type of crimes became popular among new immigrants, sort of internet scams done by Nigerian nationals. That's why the author could have included it in the article.  Anastasia Bukhantseva  05:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

  Assuming that statement is verifiable, surely it belongs in an article about patterns of healthcare fraud or new-immigrant crime in the United States, and not in an article that is specifically about one case of fraud only? The topic of "patterns of criminality among new immigrants to the United States" is far too broad in scope for this article. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:49, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Alleged crimes

{{edit protected}} Please change the language in the article to refer to alleged crimes rather than committed crimes as the arrested individuals are innocent until proven guilty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.178.189.242 (talk • contribs)

Sounds like you might have a good point. But you'll need to be specific about what actually needs to be changed. You'll also need agreement with other editors on this page. So I've disabled your request now. By the way, any project can decide which articles are within its scope, so it is not appropriate to remove the banners from the top of the page. It does not have any significance on the article, so please don't remove them. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I believe the section removed from the article on prior incidence of this crime should be modified, unPOVed and added back. Both crimes fall within the same type, regardless of who committed them. Atabəy (talk) 00:53, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

This IPs would do anything to delete the significant information. Look at the message about "Please change the language in the article to refer to alleged crimes rather than committed crimes". I mean hello, did you even read the article? Did you count how many times the word allegedly has been used? Of course, oas soon as these individuals are convicted as they are guilty of those crimes, the word allegedly will disappear. That's the reason the user who started the article put the words allegedly as it is used all over news. More important is the deleted section which shows the previously committed crimes by the same channels in the same industry.  Anastasia Bukhantseva  04:35, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Anastasia may have trouble reading English. The first sentence of the article is "2010 Medicaid Fraud refers to the medicaid fraud carried out by an Armenian-American organized crime group nation-wide." That is a clear assumption of guilt. It is also interesting that Anastasia assumes guilt in her comment when she says "oas (sic) soon as these individuals are convicted as they are guilty of those crimes" further revealing her bias. I think she should refrain from further edits if she cannot put her prejudices aside. As to Atabəy's point about the addition of references to historic crimes since "both crimes fall within the same type, regardless of who committed them", he seems to be advocating that this article be lengthened to include every instance of medical fraud in history as long as they are "of the same type". Maybe this article should be merged with another that is more broad in scope.68.231.212.133 (talk) 12:12, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

You must be from another planet to refute the fact that it was a big scale crime commited by this organized gang. This is no bias or no prejudice. This is common sense and every media aware person understand that if FBI and other law enforcement followed and finally tracked down these people, it's basically not whether they commited or not commited the crime, but its extent in their individual cases. The first line says that, the rest of the article rementions the fact with allegations. If you have no trouble reading English, you should be able to understand it. And about the "same type" stuff you're so worried about. In the court of law, if an individual or a group is convicted, prosecutors always look at their history of their crimes, crime history in their families, anything related to the subject. Here we have a case of government program fraud, specifically Medicaid, specifically done by the members of one community.

This does not concern the whole community but the fact that some from the same community have committed similar crimes in the same industry.  Anastasia Bukhantseva  04:00, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

This is bordering the realm of the surreal. I cannot believe that anyone would contemplate adding such information without insinuating something else, e.g., as if members of a certain ethnic community have the tendency to commit the same type of crimes. You may deny it all you want, but this is certainly the impression that is being created. The presence of responsible editors and experienced administrators on this page would be highly desired right now. 30 or mediation might be warranted.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 06:59, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

If you're creating the impression, keep on doing so. I have restated myself many times already. If this was multi-language Wikipedia page I would restate it in other languages for clarification you that you finally see the difference and not get that impressed.  Anastasia Bukhantseva  20:10, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

The "Similar cases of defrauding healthcare programs in California" section

On second thought, I think I should have semi-reverted the action I just did (Unlike this). Although all of the examples have a reference, there is one sentence (the "In 2008, six Armenian Americans..." part) which looks like an attack statement, mentioning the people arrested whilst also providing a dead link source. I think that part should be removed, and the rest should be kept. Minimac (talk) 14:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Check this out: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE69K4MA20101021 I'm wondering what new other medicaid fraud will be found this year, but it does appear that there was at least two 2010 Medicaid Fraud this year. Magotteers (talk) 15:36, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

More, at least three now: http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/07/16/1733354/crackdown-nets-about-100-medicare.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magotteers (talk • contribs) 15:44, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

On third thought I think the "similar cases" shown are pretty old, and is irrelevant to the article's title. The IP reverted my edit with the edit summary "The sourced information is irrelevant." I soon understood that the content was irrelevant to the article's subject: An event which occurred recently. So I do agree that the IP removed the content appropriately, but it took me a while to understand what that IP meant in terms of the word "irrelevant". Minimac (talk) 16:30, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about that, but we obviously have a problem with the title of the article, see the links I have provided, there were at least two other equally shocking frauds reported in 2010. Magotteers (talk) 05:43, 4 November 2010 (UTC)