You’re asking for the concrete number of people who are dead, but the folks in the system don’t know it?
And where there is a financial incentive for recipients to hide this fact?
That’s about as (actually) knowable as how many folks in LA are drug dealers.
We know some are, clearly, since they’ve been caught. But that is not going to be even close to correct in real terms, because they are of course going to work very hard to not get caught.
States “ According to the Social Security Administration’s Inspector General, in 2013 just over 1,500 deceased individuals in all age ranges were still receiving benefits. They account for only $15 million in improper benefit payments.”
And “According to the Social Security Administration, all improper payments, including payments to the deceased and the very old, are estimated at about $3 billion per year.”
That is in the US. And the SSA is really aggressive in trying to track down these issues. Most other pensions don’t have their resources or the type of political pressure they get.
I’ve personally overheard enough discussions among old folks to know that isn’t even the tip of the iceberg though, anymore than arresting Bob for possessing coke is ‘stopping drug trafficking’.
The main issue I see is that we are discussing in HN complex subjects like sending spaceships, AI, chip making, and arguing about something that if not fixed is because of bureaucracy first. For example, don't you think that the issue with the woman in the article could be easily solved with the UK resources put in health? I understand that probably you cannot solve 100% of cases but it is aberrant that the issue is not solved when perfectly can be.
It’s small enough of an edge case (and having it broken probably usually saves them money because some won’t be able to fight it) that fixing it hasn’t been prioritized by management, and the system to stop payments saves them enough money from fraud they aren’t getting rid of it.
Frustrating, but I’m sure we’ve all been there in some form as software engineers.
The article is attempting to publicly shame them enough that they fix it, which might work. Most organizations are allergic to bad press.
The behavior you are engaging in is known as "moving the goalposts." It involves changing the criteria or rules during an argument or discussion, ("in the developed world" -> "for European and American countries") making the original point or argument difficult or impossible to address satisfactorily.
That blog post doesn't actually talk about Japan except for in a passing quote, which itself (as best I can tell) specifically refers to economic growth and very well might be apocryphal in the first place.[0]
[1] https://hansondoremus.com/2014-4-28-there-are-four-kinds-of-...