WASHINGTON — A New York congresswoman who represents Manhattan wants answers

[fivepennies]

to why nearly 3,000 victims of the 9/11 terrorists attacks weren’t reported in the Social Security Administration’s official list of deceased Americans.

Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., said her staff started making inquiries after the errors in the federal Death Master File (DMF) were detected by Scripps Howard News Service. The file is a public record intended to protect families of the deceased from identity theft and other types of fraud.

“While nearly 3,000 individuals were killed on Sept. 11th, the list does not show an increase in numbers from the typical DMF daily average,” Maloney said. “A sampling of those names did not yield any matches in the DMF and confirms their apparent absence.”

She said her staff has contacted the Social Security Administration, the New York State Department of Health and the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, only to receive “conflicting answers as to why there is a lack of reporting on this matter.”

Full Article: http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2011/jul/09/Social-Security-Administration-grave-mistakes-911/

[LARED]

1. Much ado about nothing once again

A guy in the comments section sums it up nicely.

"......The Social Security Death Index is not a list of all deceased Americans. It is a list of those deceased whose deaths have been reported to Social Security. Obviously, the families of the 3000 killed did not report their deaths because they were not receiving benefits."

[fivepennies]

2. I would think a congress woman (or man)

might understand how SS registers dead people better than that 'guy'.

WHEN were they not receiving benefits (according to that 'guy')?

SSDI lists people who DIED, not just people receiving benefits. Hospitals and mortuaries, etc. don't ask the families of dead people if they WANT their deceased family members listed, they just DO it.

[terrafirma]

3. We still on the SSDI?

Two of my grandparents have passed.

Only one is listed on the SSDI, my grandfather.

Was my grandMOTHER in on it????

[fivepennies]

9. Was your grandmother in on what?

Sounds like a conspiracy theory.

[jberryhill]

33. Must be - look at the victims of the Loughner shooting rampage

Among the dead were US Judge John M. Roll

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40981099/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/arizona-shooting-victims/

Killed: US District Judge John M. Roll, age 63

Here's a link to search the SSDI:

http://ssdi.rootsweb.ancestry.com/

Go ahead, put in John M Roll and look at the results.

I'll even do it for you:

ROLL, JOHN M 26 Sep 1924 18 Aug 2007 (V) 82 73538 (Elgin, Comanche, OK) (none specified) Oklahoma 446-16-9196

ROLL, JOHN M 12 Sep 1920 23 Feb 2007 (V) 86 58646 (Mott, Hettinger, ND) (none specified) North Dakota 502-10-6161

ROLL, JOHN M 09 Apr 1962 01 May 2006 (V) 44 98382 (Sequim, Clallam, WA) (none specified) Colorado 523-17-7398

Viewing 1-3 of 3

HE'S NOT THERE.

NO DEATH OF A JOHN M. ROLL IN 2011!

Even though he was reported as being killed in the shooting, he's not in the SSDI.

What does that suggest to you? He's alive and in hiding, or the database is not what you think it is?

[fivepennies]

38. That's an interesting point.

about Judge Roll. Do judges and other federal officials depend on SS for death benefits, or do their survivors have a bigger better cadillac plan to draw on.

[jberryhill]

40. Well, gee, how might we answer that question

Hmm... mystery upon mystery.

Oh, how about this:

William Hubbs Rehnquist (October 1, 1924 – September 3, 2005) was an American lawyer, jurist, and political figure who served as an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States and later as the 16th Chief Justice of the United States.

And... gee...


REHNQUIST, WILLIAM H 01 Oct 1924 03 Sep 2005 (V) 80 20543 (Washington, District Of Columbia, DC) (none specified) Pennsylvania 202-05-6180

Here's an advanced question for you:

If John Roll had a wife the same age as him, when do you think his name will pop up in the SSDI?

(hint: look at the conditions for survivor's benefits I posted downthread)

[LARED]

5. Why not check it out for yourself

The guy is right and the crogresswoemen is clueless.

[fivepennies]

10. I posted the article.

the errors in the federal Death Master File (DMF) were detected by Scripps Howard News Service, not me. Take it up with them.

[William Seger]

44. So you DON'T want answers?

You just liked the insinuations?

[jberryhill]

7. What are you talking about?

Of the 3000 victims of 9/11, how many died in a hospital or had anything to do with a mortuary?

Most remains were fragmentary at best, and were not sent to a hospital or mortuary.

[fivepennies]

11. So you're saying that anyone

who's killed in a plane crash or some other conflagration where there are only bone fragments left isn't included on the federal death index? I didn't know that.

[jberryhill]

24. It's not a "federal death index" - there is no comprehensive federal database of deaths

It is an index of deaths reported to the Social Security Administration for purposes RELEVANT to administration of Social Security and Supplemental Social Security.

You said, with no support at all, that "hospitals and mortuaries" automatically report it (as if hospitals or mortuaries had the social security numbers of people who show up dead).

Nobody killed in the collapse of the towers went to a hospital. The remains were released to the families. Whether the families had any sort of funeral was up to them.

HOWEVER, anyone killed in a plane crash or what-have-you who IS COLLECTING PAYMENTS FROM THE SSA is going to eventually find their way into the SS Death Index.

There is NO FEDERAL REGISTER OF BIRTHS OR DEATHS. Births and deaths are, in general, recorded by the states. Since the late 1960's there have been a lot of improvements to matching up recorded deaths and births, to avoid the "paper game" identity adoption methods described in various underground literature from that time.

[Ohio Joe]

4. So add another 3000 o the list of those "in on it"

The list continues to grow.

[fivepennies]

8. In on it?

You mean they conspired to get themselves killed?

[Ohio Joe]

12. So you think they are dead?

See... This non-sense is usually used to show these people either never existed or are still alive. I assumed that was what you were doing, my mistake. So tell me... What was your reason for posting this?

[fivepennies]

13. I posted it because its news.

I posted it here because its 9/11 news. Just trying to follow protocol.

As for the rest, unless we know who they were and when they died, how can we know for sure they ever existed or are still alive? Of course people died, we just don't seem to know who they were in quite a few cases. I thought that was the reason SS created such a data base. Of course I could be wrong. But if the program doesn't work as advertised, maybe we're just spending money on another failed program. We should start a campaign: Stop Wasting Money; Dump the Data Base.

[Ohio Joe]

14. Which cases?

"Of course people died, we just don't seem to know who they were in quite a few cases."

I am un-aware of any such cases, please point them out.

[fivepennies]

15. I'll be waiting for the congresswoman

to point them out, if there are any such cases. I'm not an investigator but Scripps News Service seems to think there's something strange going on. If there IS something strange going on, wouldn't you want to know?

[Ohio Joe]

16. WTF?

You just said there were people we did not know if they dies or not... Now you don't know because they are not on this list that is not even supposed to carry everyone that has died? This is typical CT non-sense, trying to make a mystery out of something that is no mystery at all.

[fivepennies]

17. I said

'we don't seem to know'. And I said 'IF'.

If the list isn't supposed to carry everyone who has died, what good is it? What's its purpose? The only people I can imagine who automatically wouldn't be listed would be those without a social security number and I'm hard pressed to think of any US citizen who wouldn't have one of those in this day and age.

A world without mysteries? How awful. It would be like saying we already know everything there is to know so we can just let our brains shut down now. That's too close to being on that list as far as I'm concerned.

[Ohio Joe]

18. At least learn what it is you are talking about

"If the list isn't supposed to carry everyone who has died, what good is it? What's its purpose?"

Perhaps you could go look at it and see:

http://www.cms.gov/apps/firststep/content/ssdi-qa.html

"What is SSDI?
Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) is a monthly benefit for people who have worked in the past and paid Social Security taxes. SSDI benefits are paid to people who are unable to work for a year or more because of their disability."

So... It is not supposed to carry everyone that died but rather those that died and have survivors that need to collect benefits.

"The only people I can imagine who automatically wouldn't be listed would be those without a social security number and I'm hard pressed to think of any US citizen who wouldn't have one of those in this day and age."

Perhaps you should not imagine what something is but rather go and look at what it really is.

"A world without mysteries? How awful. It would be like saying we already know everything there is to know so we can just let our brains shut down now. That's too close to being on that list as far as I'm concerned."

If something is not a mystery, there is no reason to make it into one, that is called fantasy. There are in fact plenty of real mysteries, no reason to make one up.

[fivepennies]

19. So I guess what we have, according to 'the rules'

is somewhere in the neighborhood of three thousand people who had no survivors and who never worked and paid into social security. All in the same general vicinity on the same exact day. That's a fantasy.

What you're saying is that if YOU think something is not a mystery, no one should dispute you. Those people who died, whomever they were and however many of them there were, didn't die in a disney flick, its no fantasy. But it is still a mystery.

[SDuderstadt]

20. Trying to explain this to you...

is getting rather pointless.

[Ohio Joe]

21. More CT non-sense

"So I guess what we have, according to 'the rules' is somewhere in the neighborhood of three thousand people who had no survivors and who never worked and paid into social security. All in the same general vicinity on the same exact day. That's a fantasy."

Yes, that is a fantasy, one you seem to have pulled from the air. The article says the average number per day did not go up, also that a "sample" did not find any matches. Please prove that all of the 9/11 victims are not there, links would be appreciated, also provide the evidence that those missing have survivors that are claiming benefits.

"What you're saying is that if YOU think something is not a mystery, no one should dispute you. Those people who died, whomever they were and however many of them there were, didn't die in a disney flick, its no fantasy. But it is still a mystery."

Complete non-sense. I've offered proof to de-bunk you original OP, backed up with links to my claims, from the actual source. Please back up that there is still a mystery to your claim with a link to the actual source instead of just proclaiming that despite real evidence there is still a mystery.

[fivepennies]

22. 'Please prove' - 'provide evidence'

How much are you willing to pay for my PI services? Didn't think so.

Here's the deal: I posted an article. You didn't like it. Tough.

So if you want all those answers, complete with documentation, how about you go directly to the source? Take your demands to Scripps and the congresswoman. As if they'd give you the time of day.

[SDuderstadt]

23. You have made numerous claims here...

the maker of a claim bears the burden of proof.

It's pretty simple.

[fivepennies]

25. What's pretty simple

is that I have no interest in your demands and I am not your beast of burden.

[SDuderstadt]

27. Of course you don't...

you seem to think others should prove or disprove your claims for you.

Unsolicited advice: if you want to make claims, be prepared to prove them.

[jberryhill]

29. You didn't even read the Scripps article

to which I posted a link in this thread.

And, no, there is not going to be a statement from the Congresswoman in the future, once this is explained to her and her staff, to the effect of "Oh, we didn't know what we were talking about".

So, the good news is that, for you, it will forever remain a mystery.

[Ohio Joe]

30. ahhh, Claims without proof then

"How much are you willing to pay for my PI services? Didn't think so."

PI services? You are making claims not supported even by your source that lies, asking you to back them up is standard on message boards. If you wish to make unsubstantiated claims that are easily proven to be incorrect, I could care less, guess who it makes look like they do not know what they are talking about?

"Here's the deal: I posted an article. You didn't like it. Tough."

Incorrect. The real fact is, you posted and OP and I went to the source and proved that it's premise was untrue. Your OP is a source that lied about what it was trying to say. You then still want to believe the lie, even though it is proven to be untrue.

"So if you want all those answers, complete with documentation, how about you go directly to the source? Take your demands to Scripps and the congresswoman. As if they'd give you the time of day."

So you admit that the source that lied will not reply to truth being exposed either... How telling.

Do you always believe everything you read without looking into the claims being made? Do you always stick to believing what you read even after it is shown to be a lie? Seriously... The article claims everyone should be on the list... But if you go and see what the list claims is on it, it does not say that... Why do you believe what the article says should be on the list instead of what the list claims it is?

[jberryhill]

31. delete

wrong spot

[jberryhill]

28. "A world without mysteries? How awful"

Well, if you refuse to learn things, then the world will stay full of mysteries.

Perhaps you might read what the Social Security Administration has to say about the purpose and lack of comprehensiveness of the database.

The point is to quit issuing checks to dead people, who are known to the SSA to be dead. If you weren't collecting SSA benefits, there is NO REASON for you to be in the database.

[fivepennies]

32. 'If you weren't collecting benefits

there is no reason to be in the data base.'

Was Caylee Anthony collecting benefits?

http://ssdi.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/ssdi.cgi

Maybe what you'd really like is for people to learn to to stop asking questions.

[jberryhill]

34. Ah, so now you understand why a lot of 9/11 victims aren't in it

Where they all collecting benefits?

No.

Take a look at John M. Roll, age 63, the federal judge killed in the Gabby Giffords shooting.

He's not there either.

I have a hunch that most of the people in the WTC were not retired or on disability.

IF the death of an ssn holder is reported to the SSA, it goes into the index.

If they weren't collecting benefits, there is no reason for it, but it does cut down on identity fraud in the event someone else starts using that SSN.

But the point is that if it is not reported to the SSA, it doesn't go in. There is NO REASON for it to be there if they weren't collecting benefits. That doesn't mean that the SSA excludes records if they weren't, but I didn't think that needed to be spelled out.

[fivepennies]

37. Something is out of kilter here,

you're saying John Roll isn't on it because he wasn't collecting benefits at the time of his death, otoh, you're claiming that Caylee is on it even though she also wasn't collecting benefits at the time of her death. How does that work?

It doesn't matter if the victims weren't retired or collecting disability at the time of their deaths, what you're ignoring is that apparently none of those people allegedly missing from the list had survivors who filed for death benefits. That doesn't mystify you?

[jberryhill]

39. Oh boy....

Let's try this again.

The REASON for the database is related to not paying benefits to dead people. If someone (a) was collecting benefits and (b) is dead, then there is a STRONG likelihood they are going to be in the database.

Okay. Got that part nailed down.

Now, if the SSA receives a report of death of someone with an SSN, they'll ALSO put that in the database. No, that does not relate to the primary reason for the database, but it has a secondary advantage of reducing SSN fraud.

So, let's recap:

Collecting benefits at the time of death - definitely likely to be in the database.

Not collecting benefits at the time of death - possibly will be in the database if it was reported to the SSA.

Now, you asked about survivor's benefits.

Let's have a look at who gets them:

http://ssa.gov/pubs/10084.html

Your widow or widower may be able to receive full benefits at full retirement age. The full retirement age for survivors is age 66 for people born in 1945-1956 and will gradually increase to age 67 for people born in 1962 or later. Reduced widow or widower benefits can be received as early as age 60. If your surviving spouse is disabled, benefits can begin as early as age 50. For more information visit Widows, Widowers & Other Survivors.

Your widow or widower can receive benefits at any age if she or he takes care of your child who is receiving Social Security benefits and younger than age 16 or disabled.

Your unmarried children who are younger than age 18 (or up to age 19 if they are attending elementary or secondary school full time) also can receive benefits. Your children can get benefits at any age if they were disabled before age 22 and remain disabled.

Now, let's try this hypothetical 9/11 victim:

A fifty year old man married to a fifty year old woman. They have two children aged 21 and 25.

Is anyone in that scenario going to be collecting social security survivor's benefits?

No.

Hence, the death of that person is only going to be in the SSDI if it was specifically reported to the SSA.

But there is no operative reason for that person's death to have been reported to the SSA.

------

Now, let's consider the profile of the typical 9/11 victim.

MOST of them had not reached retirement age. These were office buildings. Most of the people in them were, quite obviously, still working. Most people marry others around their same age, so MOST of the spouses had not reached retirement age.

Hence, the only determinant of whether anyone is going to be applying for survivor's benefits up till now is whether they were around 55 years old on 9/11 (since their spouse will NOW be reaching retirement age), and/or the ages of their children, if any.

That leaves a whole lot of room for "no reason to be in the index". And again by "no reason" that doesn't mean you won't find some in there, but in that situation it depends on whether the death was reported to the SSA.

[fivepennies]

41. I'll take door number two for secondary reasons, Alex.

"Now, if the SSA receives a report of death of someone with an SSN, they'll ALSO put that in the database. No, that does not relate to the primary reason for the database, but it has a secondary advantage of reducing SSN fraud."

And I would imagine a number of the people who died on 9/11 had dependent children who qualified for benefits. Sorry, I don't do 'typical' when it comes to people who are murdered.

[jberryhill]

42. If they had qualifying children, then they are probably in the database

And one can easily go through obituaries to find them.

The claim is not that "all victims of 9/11 are not in the database". The claim is that some quantity of them are not in the database.

So, instead of leaving mysteries, how about we look for an answer.

Let's find one WITH A CHILD as an example:

http://nytimes.com/2001/10/20/national/portraits/POGF-345-21AFFLITTO.html

Daniel Afflitto: Host of Patio Parties
...
Mr. Afflitto guessed that she was pregnant with their second child, but the home pregnancy test she took that night turned out negative. On Sept. 12, however, Mrs. Afflitto found out that her husband was right.

And, looky here, the SSDI says he died on 9/11:


AFFLITTO, DANIEL 04 May 1969 11 Sep 2001 (V) 32 (FO) (none specified) New Jersey 137-60-5400


You better call the Congresswoman - we found one!

You know why he's in the database, but not might be if he didn't have children, yes?

So the whole "mystery" boils down to "why are some victims in 9/11 in the database, and some are not"?

The answer is that some of them had survivors who qualified and applied for benefits and some may have been collecting benefits. They will most likely be in the database. Otherwise, they will not be in the database unless their death was reported to the Social Security Administration anyway, but that is not required.

The SSA is not maintaining a national vital records database. They are running the Social Security program.

Do you, at this point, understand why some victims will be in it and some won't?

Some of them will turn up in years hence when their surviving spouse qualifies and applies for survivor benefits.

[fivepennies]

43. Who said that ALL of the vicrims

of 9/11 weren't in the data base? I don't believe I made such a claim and I don't think the congresswoman did, either. But if we don't know who they were, how would we know? Apparently she wants to know more about it and I agree with that. Why is that such a problem?

[jberryhill]

45. Nobody said it was a problem

However, at this point, there is ample reason to understand why some are and some aren't.

I have no idea what you mean by "if we don't know who they were".

The SSDI database is there, and victim lists are there. One can run the names through with the year 2011, and get a good idea of how many are there and how many are not.

What she wants to know is "why are they not all there". The answer to that question is facially obvious if one has a clue about why anyone may or may not be in the database.

Is there something odd, unusual or problematic in the fact that some are in the database and some aren't?

In other words, what is it that seems amiss in all this?

Let's look at the question as posed:

"why nearly 3,000 victims of the 9/11 terrorists attacks weren’t reported in the Social Security Administration’s official list of deceased Americans"

Question 1: is there an "official list of deceased Americans?" No.

Question 2: is there any foundation for the assertion that "nearly 3,000" victims aren't in it? No. I found one in seconds.

Question 3: were all of the victims Americans in the first place? No.

The question sought to be answered (a) assumes two propositions without foundation, and (b) is premised on the notion that the SSA maintains an "official list of deceased Americans"?

That makes it something of a stupid question.

I'll tell you what, though, I will take a random sample of the victim list, run it through the SSDI and see what the incidence seems to be.

Would you care to make a guess out of, say, a sample of 50 names, how many are on it or off it?

That's an experiment a person who CARED ENOUGH TO BE CURIOUS or ACTUALLY WANTED ANSWERS could run right now without leaving his/her chair. Hence, I can safely bet you won't check it out yourself.

Here's a list:

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/memorial/lists/by-name/

Ready... Set... Do nothing.

[jberryhill]

26. You haven't the foggiest notion of what the Scripps article was about

And how it has been garbled in the way it was presented to the Congresswoman and reported in the article.

Let's turn to what Scripps was ACTUALLY on about, by looking at the Scripps story, shall we?

The Scripps article was about problems arising from the use of the SSDI for epidemiological research:


http://www.scrippsnews.net/content/doctors-researchers-worry-about-accuracy-social-security-death-file


Doctors and medical researchers often worry if they can trust the Social Security Administration to accurately tell them when Americans die.

...

The research also showed that the Social Security records were less useful in identifying deaths among older women, who were often not included in records because they didn't work and pay into the Social Security Trust Fund.

...

Harvard epidemiologist Frank Sesso, said researchers recognize "there is really no perfect system for tracking survival or mortality. Both the NDI (National Death Index) and the Death Master File have some gaps."

-------------

The entire POINT of the Scripps article was that the SSDI database is used for a variety of purposes for which it was not designed, and the fact that it is incomplete may introduce errors into research based on use of it for such purposes.

Geezus.

And when the day comes that a Congressperson issues a statement saying, "We went on a wild goose chase based on a misunderstanding, never mind" that will be something.

Representative Louis Gohmert thinks that terrorists are having anchor babies in the United States. I'm not waiting for a followup from him either.

[fivepennies]

35. Snips of the Scripps article? Isn't that incomplete?

Tell you what, I'll be waiting for that mea culpa from the congresswoman. If I happen to run across it, I'll post it here, too.

[jberryhill]

36. There's a copyright policy here, you know

You want me to post the full article, or is asking you to click the link and read the whole thing too much to handle?

It is against DU rules to post the complete article, and you know that.

Don't hold your breath for a Congressperson to issue a statement saying they had their head up their ass.

[jberryhill]

6. What a remarkably stupid person she is

The SSDI is not a list of all dead people.

Presumably a good many of the people killed on 9/11 were still working and not collecting benefits.

[jberryhill]

46. So.. what were the "conflicting answers"

She asked the SSA and two NY state agencies about the operation of a database that has nothing to do with either of the two state agencies, and got back different answers. Big surprise there that the answers from the state agencies, who don't operate the database in question, weren't the same as whatever the actual operator of the database might have said.

But, why doesn't she disclose the questions asked and the answers received?

Why is she withholding this important information from the public?

What is she hiding from us?