Originally Posted by punky

Well, the government know all that anyway. Its merely a case of trying to centralise the data and make it secure. Remember, 9/11 happened, because the INS couldn't talk with the DMV or the DOS (despite INS being a department of the DOS!), and making sure it is secure (and that everyone sees the appropriate info. i.e. the paramedics only see my health record, and the immigration only see my passport info.

The government can do that now... just takes a bit longer.

And don't worry, i'll try wearing my evil conservative hat a bit, try and stop you agreeing with me

Originally Posted by me283

OK, you are clearly missing one point, and ignoring another... or your maths isn't too good, I'm not sure which.

Firstly, fraud savings can only be estimated, because a lot of fraud goes undetected. That is why when fraud is detected other fraud often comes to light. There are different types of fraud; ongoing fraud, and one-off frauds. The latter type can be more costly, as it may never ever be detected. The figures you are quoting relate to BELIEVED flevels of fraud. I repeat, they CANNOT be accurate. Try speking to someone who works in fraud, you may find it very interesting.

Second point, the figure you quote relates to one type of fraud only, therefore it is the minimum estimate; my previous post stated that there would be many types of fraud. Now, a simple man might acknowledge that there would be savings from each type of fraud, therefore those savings would need to be added together.

I am not sure if you didn't understand what I was saying, or were merely being difficult in an attempt to make me look foolish or ridicule me... I suspect the latter. It matters not, for regardless of whether you like it, this scheme could well be introduced by the next Government. If so, it will be interesting to see the amount saved.

Feel free to write another voluminous reply, I have plenty of time to respond to relevant points.