This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Florida to require drug testing for welfare recipients
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
ElhonnaDS
I feel like rolling a Troll for a forum based guild is almost required...
Post by
xaratherus
A few additional details on the law (I'm still trying to dig up the actual text of the law itself) that I dug up from various news articles:
The Department of Children & Families must inform applicants that they can avoid a drug test if they do not apply for benefits.
The state must assure each applicant “a reasonable degree of dignity while producing and submitting a sample".
Parents who fail drug tests can get benefits for their children by naming a state-approved designee to collect the money. That designee must also pass a drug test.
233,000 Floridians applied for welfare between 2009-2010. 114,000 of those represented families.
Tests will cost from $15-25.
A non-familial welfare claimant who tests positive for drug use will be denied application for welfare monies for 6 months, or until they can show that they've completed treatment. Failing the test a second time denies them application for monies for three years
So this brings up a few key points:
First, the assumption that the welfare applicants are mostly families is not exactly true. There are a large number of individuals applying for welfare monies in Florida (or at least individuals who, for whatever reason, don't mention that they have children - unlikely, I would think).
Second, the simple mention of a required drug test to an individual who is a drug user will probably result in the person just not applying for welfare monies; if you know you're going to test positive, which could lead to an arrest, then it would be silly to still bother with applying. Some will - but not all, and that will result in savings.
Third, those who test positive cannot simply designate Uncle Joe to pick up the money for them; the state must approve of the designee before they hand over the cash; the details on what a "state-approved designee" means, I'm not sure - but it probably includes some sort of checks to ensure that the person is unlikely to just hand over the money.
Finally, the drug tests cost less than people were estimating.
Source
.
Post by
Heckler
if you know you're going to test positive,
which could lead to an arrest
Out of curiousity, is there any truth to this? As far as I knew, testing positive for drug use wasn't illegal in any way -- actual use and possession, sure, but not simply a positive test. Unless you're referring to someone who is on parole already or something? But then they would likely already be required to submit to drug testing.
Anyways, knowing that when someone fails they are turned away, a lot of my feelings about the secondary harm of doing that are strengthened. Seems to me offering some sort of drug abuse help would be a more proper "penalty" for the first failing (although that may be what is meant by 'after they show they have completed treatment').
It also strengthens my earlier feelings that making the benefits contingent on the drug test is presumptuous, because the choice is starkly clear -- submit to the drug test, or get no benefits. (I do wonder what the maximum cash benefit is for a single person, it can't be much if $700/month is supposed to sustain a family of 3).
(Again I'll acknowledge that this is because "a reasonable degree of dignity" had a very different meaning in the Navy, where similar language was used -- after a few days thinking about it, I'm beginning to agree that my feelings on the topic of the actual urine sample collection are probably invalid in this discussion, so no need to try to convince me to abandon this line of reasoning. I'm ready to admit that out of all of my arguments against the bill, this is the weakest.)
As far as the appointee, I would assume "state approved" means that they are drug tested themselves, and then they are required to sign a form or something saying they won't just give the money to the drug user. I doubt its anything strong enough that it wouldn't just keep honest people honest though (and allow bad people a way around).
But even so, if you only applied the program to the non-family recipients (allowing to ignore this workaround), there would be immediate savings -- if you just compare total drug test costs to total amount not distributed, it would probably be cost effective.
The secondary effects and their costs... I don't know; I'm not convinced that cutting someone off is going to improve the overall situation at all. Even if it saves the taxpayers $5 today, the repercussions might end up costing a lot more in the future (prison, more enforcement necessary, more drug problems, etc). The end result is a society that is worse off in general, and more spending. Lose - lose.
Edit
: Here's the full text of the bill:
Full Text
,
Tracking Page
After reading it, the penalty for failing is 1 year of ineligibility (3 years if you fail twice). If you complete a drug rehab program (the state provides no assistance in doing this) you can reduce that time to 6 months. In the case of an appointee, it must be a family member (the closest one available), and they must be drug tested. If it's not the closest available family member, then it must be specifically approved by the state.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
I don't know that my feeling on this law is based as much on which is the best way for us to help drug addicts, as it is based on the idea that if you cannot afford to pay for your life, and you want me to do it for you, do I have the right to know you're not spending MY money on drugs.
One of my biggest pet peeves with human beings in general is that so many of them seem to have this amazing sense of entitlement to anything and everything. People run their credit into the ground spending more than they make because they "deserve to have nice things". People steal from their employers because they "deserve more than they get paid". Customers have gotten this idea that they can be as rude as they want to retail workers and waitstaff, and that if there is even the hint of response or imperfection in service, they feel they "deserve free XYZ". Kids go to school and tell teachers to go F*** themselves without flinching, and then parents go ballistic when the child is punished, because their children "deserve to act and say whatever they want" and the parent "deserves to decide whether or not they teach their children how to behave.
Where the heck is the sense of accountability? You know what you deserve? What you EARN! I earn a paycheck every week. I earn (not demand) the respect of my coworkers because of my work ethic and ability to get things done. I earned my grades in school, I earned the scholarship that paid for half of my tuition.
People on welfare (not unemployment, I'll separate the two since I know that can be a separate issue) didn't earn any of that money. They're not "entitled" to have someone else cover their bills, they don't "deserve" to have someone else work so they can stay home. As a society we have recognized that the compasionate and civilized thing to do is to provide for those who cannot provide for themselves, but they have not earned anything from us. It IS a charity, and for many people "cannot work" has become "don't want to work".
Is it embarassing for you to apply for welfare, because we ask a lot of personal questions and require a drug test? Good- get a job. Is it hard for you to afford all of the finer things in life, like entertainment and brand names? Good- get a job! Do you feel like you're being singled out based on the fact that you haven't been working for the last four years? Good- get a job! Putting limits and requirements on what someone has to do for a check every week isn't keeping them from getting something they're entitled to- it's keeping them from taking advantage of something that they are given regardless of whether they earned anything or not. It SHOULD be uncomfortable for someone to freeload off of everyone else.
You think it's annoying peeing in a cup twice a year to earn a check- try getting up at 6:30 in the morning 5-6 days a week, going someplace and doing something tedious or physically strenuous for 8-10 hours a day. Try putting up with obnoxious customers, moody bosses and equipment failures. If you're not willing to put up with any of those things, then you are giving up the right to demand anything. You have no right to have the rest of the population pay for you- it's a gift. And if it's a gift with strings that you don't like, don't take it. I think that we have the right to drug test people who get assistance, check their spending patterns on their credit/debit cards, see what kinds of cars they're registering at the DMV, etc. If you want privacy, then spend your own money. If you want a free ride, then you have to accept whatever form it comes in.
I KNOW that there are people out there who legitimately need assistance for a few months, maybe even a year, because of a real emergency, or need. But there is no human being who cannot get a job for 2, 3, 4 years, unless it's because they can't pass a drug test, they have a substantial criminal record, they have a bad attitude, or they're not actually trying to get a job. It seems to me that if they're doing something wrong, and we're paying their bills as a result, they're not facing any consequences. In the long run, what do you think that does to our society?
TL;DR- It's a lot more harmful to have a society with no consequences, accountability or work ethic than it is to have a deficit in the budget, or make people uncomfortable with something that, honestly, they should be uncomfortable about anyway. I know I would be uncomfortable as heck if I had to ask for a hand-out.
Post by
Pwntiff
^ Agreed.
False entitlement is rampant, especially in the US.
Post by
207044
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Heckler
. . . I honestly think its a the biggest single drain . . .
Compared to our corporate welfare programs (tax subsidies, no-bid contracts, "privatization" of the public sector, etc), and wasteful spending in the Dept. of Defense and Dept. of Homeland Security, I sincerely doubt wasteful welfare spending even registers on the charts. That's like when people say the number one way to cut the deficit is to stop "foreign aid" -- which represents less than 3% of the discretionary budget.
I understand people's frustrations with the welfare system in general, but it's a tiny problem in the grand scheme of things. Perhaps indicative of a "culture" problem as discussed before, but in and of itself, probably near insignificant compared to other wasted dollars. In addition, drug testing of
this
type probably won't stop someone who is dead set on bypassing it -- the policy doesn't have enough teeth to catch someone specifically trying to get around it (especially those who have
more
dependents for the specific reason of getting a larger check).
Post by
207044
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Heckler
But that being said you cut those cost there are still alot of injustices like I averaged out my time pay to time on duty and made around $2.20 a hour over entire military service. Not including the time spent sleeping or the fact I couldnt go home at end of the day.
I find myself wondering if you included things like the place you slept, the food you ate, the medical coverage you had, retirement incentives, dependent coverage, etc. in your estimates. I was in the Navy for six years, when I got out I was E-6 receiving BAH. I could skew the numbers to come up with a per-hour wage that would make it look like I was living in poverty, just as easily as I could come up with an equally truthful estimate that would make any other high-school-educated, five-years-experience worker jealous because it was so high.
Even so, personnel spending is a small slice of the Defense budget, and shouldn't even come into the discussion. Interesting word choice in calling your wage an "injustice" though.
It would be cut in half to quarter with no need to spend money elsewhere in same program.
Half to a quarter huh? With no source, and no consideration of added personnel costs caused by these "audits?" I don't think that's even worth a rebuttal.
Post by
207044
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
At the end of the day, I think most people would rather overpay someone for doing something than overpay someone for doing nothing. And, honestly, for what they're required to do, military personnel are not overpaid AT ALL. I will concede that there are conflicts we're involved in that are none of our business, were entered into prematurely or where we're backing policies that we probably shouldn't, and that eliminating those would eliminate a lot of wasteful spending. Don't confuse that with the military personnel being overpaid, though, or being a drain on the budget. They get paid for a job- a dangerous, important job- and they more than earn that money.
There are plenty of places where budget cuts could be made, to help with government funding. Just because you can see one area that could use a trim, doesn't mean that trimming another area is a bad idea.
The argument behind this bill is that a lot of welfare and assistance money is wasted on non-essentials, and drug testing will eliminate some of that. To counter that by saying that there are other areas that spend much more is not actually a reason to not do it. If you are looking to start healthier eating habits, and your first move is to switch from regular soda to died soda, or crystal light or something, that is something that will help. Will it help as much as switching from cheeseburgers to salads? Probably not. Does that mean that you shouldn't switch the drinks, and at least take a step in the right direction?
Besides, this bill isn't necessarily just about saving money. It's also about accountability among people who are getting assistance. Sometimes accountability can't be measured in dollars and cents. Sometimes it's about what the right thing is, and not the most cost effective.
EDIT: I just found this, and I thought I'd lighten up the thread a little. LOL
http://notalwaysright.com/bureacracys-hidden-benefits/1193
Post by
Heckler
Don't confuse that with the military personnel being overpaid, though, or being a drain on the budget. They get paid for a job- a dangerous, important job- and they more than earn that money.
Not everyone in the military is in a foxhole getting shot at. There are plenty of people who spend four years at a desk, watching shelves whose contents never change. Many people in the military are overpaid, and many are underpaid. You really can't just paint
every single
serviceperson with this "what you're doing is brave and necessary and you deserve more than we could ever give you" brush -- it may be true in some cases (maybe even the majority) but definitely not all. (In addition, as I stated above, my point about wasteful spending in the Dept. of Defense had little to do with personnel wages).
Edit:
I also think I should define what I mean by "overpaid," since this country is currently involved in a race to the bottom where pointing out that someone lives comfortably isn't a reason for you to get a raise, but for them to get a cut. I simply mean that compared to what their actions, education, experience, and even risk-level would get them in a private sector job, they get substantially more in some cases. In my opinion, this is a reason for the private sector to increase their wages, not the other way around. This entire line of conversation was spawned by a pet-peeve in my mind of
servicemen
who
piss and moan
that they don't get paid enough.
You don't join the military for a paycheck
, and what they gave you was more than sufficient (and pretty damn generous from the right perspective, which hampton1 is clearly lacking).
The rest of your post is simply restating what's already been stated -- except I never said the savings are too small to worry about, I simply said that hampton1's statement "single biggest drain" was wildly inaccurate. However, playing off your analogy to make my point that's already been made, let's say I decided to keep my sodas and my cheeseburgers, but start taking diet pills like Ephedrine. A step in the right direction, right? (suppose this hypothetical takes place in the years while Ephedrine was perfectly legal and easy to get, and not considered harmful by the FDA).
10 years later those pills give me a healthy body weight, as well as scarred heart valves or cancer, and the net result -- when
all
things are considered -- is that it wasn't a step in right direction at all. (
as a more direct analogy, there are plenty of overweight people who drink diet soda, and it might actually make things worse
).
That's a closer analogy to my point: people are instantly willing to make a couple assumptions (1 - most people on welfare spend tons of money on drugs, and 2 - if we cut them off completely from the system, the problem will improve) without much actual evidence (and if evidence gets in the way, then the "do what's right" argument comes out -- not to discount doing what's right, but really, it has almost nothing to do with the question when the alternative might not only cost more, but harm more lives).
In my opinion, these assumptions and reasoning are shortsighted, because they don't even attempt to take all the factors into consideration. It's not about saving money, or doing what's right; it's about approaching a complex problem as if it were a complex problem.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
I understand your analogy, although technically you're adding drugs to that situation instead of trying to remove then :) I agree, I don't think assistance programs are the biggest drain on the economy- not by a long shot. You want to talke about a REAL waste of money- company bailouts. But I digress.
This bill doesn't make the assumption that most people getting assistance are on drugs- it makes the assertion that NO ONE on assistance SHOULD be on drugs. When a car dealer does a credit check, it's not because he assumes most people don't pay their bills, it's because he needs to protect himself in case they don't. When an employer requires all of their employees to take drug tests, it's not because they think most of their employees are drug addicts- it's because they don't want to take the chance of employing any drug addicts. I think that reading this bill as a blanket statement that all people on welfare are drug addicts is a little quick to the cut, especially since it only mirrors the qualifications many companies use to screen applicants.
At the end, both you and I are going to be going in circles at this point, because it's all theoretical. We really aren't going to know which one of us are right about the long term effects of this law until 5-10-20 years down the road, when the studies come out. I think your argument seems well-thought out, comes from a background of being educated about social/political situations and logical. I'd like to think mine is as well. I think our differences here are based on differences in perspective and experience, which makes our outlooks on what this bill means, what it implies and what the probable results will be very different.
Post by
Heckler
We really aren't going to know which one of us are right about the long term effects of this law until 5-10-20 years down the road, when the studies come out. I think your argument seems well-thought out, comes from a background of being educated about social/political situations and logical. I'd like to think mine is as well. I think our differences here are based on perspective and experience, which makes our outlooks on what this bill means, what it implies and what the probable results will be very different.
I'll agree with you, and add as a corollary that we are both therefore equally
uncertain
that this is a good idea. The difference is that you're willing to act while uncertain, and I would prefer to become less uncertain prior to acting.
I'm not saying I'm right and you're wrong however, my attitude can lead to years of inaction in the face of pressing problems -- sometimes you
need
to act on uncertainty (indeed, certainty is usually not possible), maybe this is one of those times. In this case specific case however, I think ignorance and passion are leading the charge for most supporters, and little thought is being given to the greater impact on the society as whole. Even if it turns out to be a good thing, that's not a good way to create policy (examples: the "
U.S.A. P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act
," the "
Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act
," the "
Reclaiming Individual Liberty Act
," or the "
Revoke Excessive Policies that Encroach on American Liberties (R.E.P.E.A.L.) Act
" -- we're better than this, aren't we?)
Also I wasn't saying
the bill itself
makes the assumptions (though I think it does), I was saying that
people
make those assumptions when forming their opinion of the bill (I think you can agree with me for at least some fraction of the bill's support). I agree that
your
case is well thought out and logical (as well as a few others), but there's plenty of people here for which that's simply not true.
But I agree that from this point, there's not much to be gained from further discussion. In fact I considered the topic closed until hampton1's post showed up and
demanded
to be countered. The posts by you, xara, and Squishalot have given me new perspective, and while they haven't changed my opinion, they have refined it significantly. I would hope my posts have done the same for you.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
I would hope my posts have done the same for you.
They have- I always like to hear the counter-points to any case that I make for my opinions (real counter points like yours, of course, not insult hurling or "because Harold Camping told me so"). I enjoy a challenge, and if you stop listening, you stop learning.
Post by
238331
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
I would hope my posts have done the same for you.
They have- I always like to hear the counter-points to any case that I make for my opinions (real counter points like yours, of course, not insult hurling or "because Harold Camping told me so"). I enjoy a challenge, and if you stop listening, you stop learning.
As long as their was something to listen to to begin with, which is often debatable on the Internet. Not pointing at this thread or Heckler, just stating.
I agree- although I have gotten much better about not getting annoyed over really ridiculous statements anymore. I have had to. My boyfriend knows how I like to debate, so he tries to get me agitated by starting conversations with sentences like "You know if they just killed everyone with X disease, that would be like curing it, right?" or "If we ever have kids, I think we should let them do whatever drugs they want in the house. That way, if they OD, we'll be there to call an ambulance." He doesn't believe any of these things, but he likes to piss me off.
Post by
238331
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
Awesome- my kids are going to have tusks :(
Post by
xaratherus
Awesome- my kids are going to have tusks :(
Why are you sad?
Trolls are better than you.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.